ssos 












.00 



0> '& 









% 









. «■ ' 













K/ 










; - 



7 ^ 



,0< 






p c * 

* a 1 a * v V 



n *<* 



B 4^ 



%,^' 



v- v 



/^ 




^ N 













%. »o ho* 5 ^0 -o ».m** vV 



•0 * 






.0- 



,^v 



v 0o 













<*> * 



w *j %/ ;\,^ 








, V o 















\* s 

o V s 






; ^ ^ 






Industrial Conference 



Under the Auspices of 

The National Civic Federation 



Held at 

Rooms of Board of Trade and Transportation 

New York 

December 8, 9, io, 1902 



Niw York 

The Winthrop Prxs* 

1903 






& 



•b 



*v* 






^ 










Copyright, 1903 

BY 

RALPH M. EASLEY 



PREFACE. 

THIS volume contains the stenographic report of the 
third National Conference held under the auspices 
of the Industrial Department of the National Civic 
Federation. The first Conference was held in Chicago, 
December 17 and 18, 1900; the second Conference 
was held in New York, December 16 and 17, 1901, 
and the third Conference in New York, December 
8, 9 and 10, 1902. Papers and discussions of the 
first and second conferences have been published in 
a volume entitled "National Conference on Indus- 
trial Conciliation." 

The third Conference marks a step in advance of 
the preceding conferences in that the discussions 
covered not merely the general subject of Concil- 
iation and Arbitration, but also the practical questions 
which employers and employees must settle when 
they meet in a conciliation or arbitration conference. 
Such are the questions of apprenticeship, piece and 
premium methods of payment, use of machinery, 
restrictions on output, hours of labor, employment 
of non-unionists, boycotts, etc. The third day was 
devoted to the discussion of the system of joint 
trade agreements. It is not too much to say that 
many of the questions, whose theoretical discussion 
during the earlier sessions seemed to bring no cer- 
tain conclusions, were shown in these closing sessions 
to be capable of a practical solution when once that 
system is fully adopted. 

iii 



CONTENTS. 

PAGB 

Opening Address, Senator M. A. Hanna, Chairman In- 
dustrial Department, National Civic Federation. ... 1 

Address of Welcome, Mayor Seth Low 2 

Address, Alfred Mosely 8 

Address, P. Walls, General Secretary Blast Furnace- 
men's Association, Great Britain 25 

Address, Archbishop Ireland 28 

Address, C. U. Carpenter, Labor Department, National 
Cash Register Co., "Labor Departments for Large 
Industrial Organizations " 38 

Address, G. C. Sikes, late Secretary Chicago Street Rail- 
way Commission 48 

Address, Charles Francis Adams, "Investigation and 

Publicity as Opposed to Compulsory Arbitration " . . 58 

Address, John McMackin, Labor Commissioner, State 

of New York 78 

Address, G. N. Barnes, Secretary Amalgamated Society 

of Engineers, Great Britain 84 

Address, John R. Commons, " Restriction of Output". . . 92 

Address, Frederick A. Halsey, Associate Editor Amer- 
ican Machinist, " The Premium Plan of Paying for 
Labor" 105 

Address, James O'Connell, President International As- 
sociation of Machinists 123 

Address, Henry White, Secretary United Garment 

Workers of America, "The Problems of Machinery ". 151 

Address, George Gunton, "The Eight Hour Day" 163 

Address, A. F. Weber, Chief Statistician Department of 

Labor, New York, "Hours of Labor" 189 

Address, Lewis Nixon, President United States Ship 

Building Company 202 

v 



vi CONTENTS. 

PAGE 

Address, Theodore Marburg, Vice-President American 

Economic Association, " Hours of Labor" 211 

Address, George H. Barbour, National Association of 
Manufacturers, "The Proposed Eight Hour Law on 
Government Contracts " 231 

Address, R. M. Easley, Secretary National Civic Feder- 
ation 243 

Address, Marcus M. Marks, President National Clothiers' 

Association 249 

Address, Samuel Gompers, President American Feder- 
ation of Labor 255 

Address, 0. C. Barber, President Diamond Match Com- 
pany 288 

Address, Frederick Driscoll, Commissioner American 

Newspaper Publishers' Association 293 

Address, Samuel Mather, of Pickand-Mather Company, 

Cleveland, Ohio, "Longshoremen's Agreements". . . 300 

Address, Daniel Keefe, President International Long- 
shoremen's Association 303 

Address, Frederick T. Towne, President National 

Founders' Association 312 

Address, M. M. Garland, ex-President Amalgamated 

Association of Iron and Steel Workers 324 

Address, A. Beverly Smith, Secretary Lithographers' 

Association of the United States 335 

Address, Prof. J. W. Jenks, Cornell University, "The 

Analogy Between Strikes and War." 343 

Address, John Graham Brooks, "Trade Agreements". ... 351 

Address, Senator M. A. Hanna 363 



THE NATIONAL CIVIC FEDERA- 
TION, DECEMBER 8-9-10, 1902. 

THE FIRST SESSION OF THE ANNUAL MEET- 
ING OF THE INDUSTRIAL DEPARTMENT 
WAS HELD IN THE ROOMS OF THE BOARD 
OF TRADE, 203 BROADWAY, NEW YORK, 
ON THE ABOVE DATE. 

The meeting was called to order at 11 o'clock 
a. m. by the Chairman of the Industrial Department, 
Senator Marcus A. Hanna. 

The following are the proceedings in full. 

Senator Hanna: Gentlemen of the Committee, 
in extending welcome to you I also wish to extend 
congratulations. Your presence here to-day is in- 
dicative that the spirit which inspired this organiza- 
tion has not lost interest or effect, and, coming here 
to-day, after a year's absence, we desire to renew our 
loyalty to the cause which we have espoused and our 
determination to go forward with this good work. 

I am glad to be able to say that our experiences 
in the last year have proved to those who are charged 
with the responsibilities of this work the fact that 
the great mass of the American people are in sym- 



2 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

pathy with the organization and its work. It is a 
very important factor in the evolution which is now 
taking place in this country. This great industrial 
question has come to the surface and is demanding 
due and careful consideration by the people of the 
United States. No more important question claims 
their attention than this one, which seeks to bring 
about a better relationship between capital and labor. 
The object of this meeting to-day, and for the sev- 
eral days for which we are to meet, is to discuss in 
every phase of this question all matters of interest 
which will tend to the improvement of these condi- 
tions, as affecting these two great factors, and which 
shall interest to a larger extent the people of this 
country to join with us in this work. Public opinion 
is the chief arbiter of all great questions affecting 
the body politic. Therefore, we want to get in closer 
touch with the people everywhere, and feel that our 
work is commanding not only their respect but their 
sympathy. 

It is our purpose to discuss these great economic 
questions fully, so that the thoughtful men, men of 
experience, can lend their advice and contribute their 
effort and sympathy to our cause. I have the pleas- 
ure of introducing to you the distinguished Mayor of 
New York, Mayor Low. 

Mayor Seth Low : Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen — 
It gives me great pleasure to welcome to the City of 
New York this committee of the National Civic 
Federation. I know of no body which I could wel- 
come here more heartily, because it seems to me 
there is no problem affecting the people of the United 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 3 

States more important than the industrial problem 
of which your chairman has spoken. The attitude 
of the Civic Federation to this problem is one of the 
most encouraging movements of our day. In the 
first place, it is a recognition of the fact that there is 
a problem and that there is something to be said on 
both sides of it. This union of men who are em- 
ployers and men who represent the employees to 
study this question is destined to be the most im- 
portant factor, I am confident, in bringing about the 
better relationship between capital and labor for 
which we all hope. And it is so destined, it seems to 
me, for several reasons; first of all, because this 
Federation is made up not only of capitalists but of 
"laborists" — men who have made a study of the 
subject from their own point of view, who feel 
strongly what is right from their own point of view, 
and who are yet broad-minded enough to recognize 
that others may see and may help to solve problems 
which they themselves only see in part. When a 
strike takes place it generally comes before the public 
with both parties to it in this attitude, that each is 
wholly right and the other wholly wrong. The very 
existence of this Civic Federation assumes that there 
is likely to be right on both sides, and that the wise 
policy is to try to adjust action to a recognition of 
what is right on each side. In other words, this 
body can, by mediation and conciliation, do much 
to prevent trouble, rather than to heal it. If trouble 
comes I assume that this Federation always is ready 
to do what it can to remedy, to avert the mischief that 
may come from it. But it stands first of all as the 



4 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

living witness to the belief on the part of many of 
the American people that the wisest policy is to pre- 
vent trouble by bringing about just relationship be- 
tween capital and labor, and that justice is most 
likely to prevail when each side recognizes that there 
are rights on the other side that must be considered. 
Because this is your attitude, because your Federation 
is so organized, because the problem is so worthy of 
the best thought and the best service that anybody 
can give to it, I greet you again in the name of the 
City of New York and welcome you here most heart- 
ily. (Great applause.) 

The Chairman: The work of this organization has 
extended its influence beyond the confines of this 
country. It has attracted attention in Europe to 
that extent that men, who feel the same interest as 
we, have come to us from the old country to learn 
the movements and the lessons that we are trying 
to teach here. Mr. Alfred Mosely, of England, 
brought to this country a few weeks ago a delegation 
of over twenty men representing the different trade 
organizations of England, to study conditions, to 
meet and know those who are laboring in the vine- 
yard on this side. He has made trips through the 
West and studied all these conditions from the stand- 
point of an Englishman. I know that you will all 
be glad to hear from him this morning. I have the 
pleasure of presenting Mr. Alfred Mosely. (Ap- 
plause.) 

Mr. Alfred Mosely: Mr. Chairman and Gentle- 
men — It gives me great pleasure to have the oppor- 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 5 

tunity of saying a few words to you to-day, because I 
feel that in the work of the Civic Federation there 
is the possibility of great good to the workers, not 
only of the United States, but of the world. Perhaps 
it would be more modest on my part as a stranger 
among you to be a listener rather than a speaker, 
but I have been requested to say a few words, be- 
cause the gentlemen who have honored me by accom- 
panying me to this side of the water have aroused a 
great deal of interest throughout the country, and 
it may perhaps be of interest to you to hear what they 
have seen, and how I, from my standpoint, view the 
situation here. 

What led me to make this trip ? It has been asked 
all over the country, and I will tell you. I am a 
colonial, English born, but I have spent the greater 
part of my life in the British Colonies, principally 
South Africa. I was there interested in mining. We 
mined for years, in our diamond mines especially, 
with a variety of English engineers, but we made no 
progress. Diggers came and went, some held on 
by the skin of their teeth and others made a little 
money, but the great bulk failed. Companies were 
formed and they in turn, one after the other, had to 
close down, until an American engineer called Gar- 
diner Williams arrived upon the scene. He was 
followed by a large number of engineers and others, 
and it is to the American engineer that we owe the 
success, all the success, of South Africa. The mining 
propositions have been put on a sound basis in South 
Africa, not by the English engineer in the first place — 
he may have learned afterwards — but primarily by 



6 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

the American. I was astonished by their methods 
and I made up my mind it was necessary, as one who 
studies economics, to visit the country that had pro- 
duced such men, who had been able to show us the 
way, when we thought that we led the world. Five 
years ago I came here and went through the country, 
and I became convinced that your methods, your 
general mode of handling business propositions, was 
far ahead of our own in the Old Country. We who 
had led the van of the world for many years had 
become somewhat rusty. We were in the position of 
a man who had eaten a good dinner and had set 
down to smoke a good cigar, away from the rest of 
the world. We know to-day that such a position is 
dangerous; it does not make for progress. But it 
is the natural result of too much prosperity. 

I went back to England five years ago with the in- 
formation, to my friends and to the public, that I 
thought things were progressing in the United States 
at a speed that we ourselves did not realize, and I 
set about the work which, I am happy to say, we 
have brought so far to a successful issue. It was 
useless for me to invite the delegates of the trades 
unions to accompany me here unless I had the sym- 
pathy of the American manufacturers and the people, 
and accordingly I came to this country some six 
months ago with letters of introduction from Am- 
bassador Choate to the most influential commercial 
and industrial gentlemen of the United States, with 
a view of ascertaining whether such a delegation as I 
wished to bring would be acceptable to the American 
people as a whole, and whether the manufacturers 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 



7 



would be prepared to open their doors to us, that 
we might view what they had to show. It gives me 
great pleasure to say that upon that trip, as upon 
the present one, I found the warm hand of welcome 
held out — the heartiest hand of welcome it was pos- 
sible to imagine. Everyone was interested; every- 
one wished to help us to study and learn what we 
had come here to see, and everyone extended to us 
the warmest welcome. 

This attitude, I must own, astonishes me, and I 
am filled with admiration for a people who can be so 
broad as to extend the knowledge of themselves to 
others from another country. I went back to Eng- 
land and issued my invitations to the various trades 
unions representing the principal industries of the 
United Kingdom. The consequence was twenty- 
three gentlemen accepted, all but one of those I had 
asked, and they have accompanied me here and have 
been busy for the last six weeks going over this great 
country. We have visited Schenectady, Niagara, 
Buffalo, Cleveland, Chicago, Dayton, Pittsburg, 
Washington, Philadelphia, New York, and a variety 
of other places, largely in the East, Boston and all 
around the New England States, and I am sure that 
these gentlemen are now primed with a mass of in- 
formation which they will take home to the Old 
Country, and which I feel sure can only be conducive 
of good to the workmen at home and to the manu- 
facturers. 

We have been received everywhere, as I have just 
now said, with open arms, with the greatest of hos- 
pitality, and with the very kindest of feeling, and I 



8 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

feel that I owe to the American people a great debt 
of gratitude for all that they have allowed us to ac- 
quire in the way of knowledge, so freely. 

In our trip through the country it is, perhaps, 
hardly for me to criticise, but I feel that as a free 
lance — and I am a free lance because I am neither 
an employee or an employer of labor — I may safely 
criticise what we have seen, without, perhaps, treading 
upon the toes of those gentlemen who are going to 
make reports to their various trades unions on their 
return. There have been many points that have 
struck me, and I think have struck the delegates 
with equal force, as to the difference of conditions 
between the Old Country and the United States. 
One is the general adoption in the United States of 
piece work, with the result that better wages are 
earned, I believe, here — infinitely better wages than 
we pay on the other side. Why is it that the work- 
men in America can earn so much better wages and 
the manufacturers can make large profits, and can 
yet compete in the world's markets with their prod- 
ucts ? It is a very important question for the dele- 
gates to have to answer. I think it lies largely in 
the system of piece-work, which the American manu- 
facturer views from a broader standpoint than the 
English operator. He says: "Earn, gentlemen, all 
you can. We will set a price, a fair price, and the 
more money you earn as workmen the better we are 
pleased. You are taking up a certain portion of 
space in our factory ; that portion of space represents 
capital, because the fixed charges are the same 
whether you are doing much or little; therefore, the 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. g 

more work you perform the better it is for you and 
the better it is for me." In England I do not think 
the manufacturers there have adopted that attitude. 
They say that a British workman is entitled to earn 
about such and such an amount, and if through his 
energy and his enterprise he succeeds in earning larger 
wages, the manufacturers begin to say: "These men 
are earning too much. Good gracious me, this sum 
of money is hardly fitted to their position. We must 
cut the price." Accordingly, the price is cut, and 
that system has gone on for generations, with the 
result that heart is taken out of the men and they 
do not to-day, I believe, put forth their best energies, 
because they feel — and rightly feel, as I should if I 
were in their place — that their treatment has not 
been generous. 

Another point that I think will have struck my 
delegates is this: The encouragement that is offered 
by the manufacturers of this country to the brains 
and the initiative of the workmen. They say to the 
workmen: "Tell us all you know. Do you see any- 
thing that you think can be improved? If so, send 
in those improvements to us and we will recognize 
them by payment, either by a premium or by giving 
you a share in the saving that you have enabled us 
to effect, or by promotion, or by some other form 
of remuneration equally satisfactory." The result is 
that they have a multiplicity of brains continually 
working, seeking to improve the methods of manu- 
facture, seeking to give the manufacturers the benefit 
of their experience, and only the man who is working 
daily at the machines, and who is continually in touch 



I0 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

with the practical part of the business, really sees 
what is going on and has the opportunity of improv- 
ing the methods of manufacture. The man sitting 
in his counting-house as administrator cannot im- 
prove. It is the mass of the workmen that one must 
look to for suggestions and inventions. The Ameri- 
can manufacturer has recognized that and encourages 
the initiative of the men and rewards it. In England, 
I am sorry to say, I do not think our manufacturers 
have taken that broad-minded view. They stand in 
the position of saying: "We know our business; 
we have nothing to learn; we require you there to 
do your work; do as you are told. We ask nothing 
more." If any man thinks an improvement should 
be suggested in any point — and I have no doubt 
they continually see them — he goes to the foreman, 
possibly with this result — usually he does not get as 
far as the master, what you call here the operator — 
we call them masters in England — he does not get so 
far, but he may if he has a good deal of courage get 
as far as the foreman. The foreman says: "Are you 
running this business or am I? Do you want to 
teach me my work, because if so you had better put 
on your coat and go." That is the attitude — largely 
the attitude, almost entirely the attitude — of the 
manufacturer in England to all who make a sugges- 
tion. 

There is another point that also militates against 
the initiative of the workmen, and that is the jealousy 
of the foreman. The foreman feels that if Tom, 
Dick or Harry is going to make the suggestion, his 
position is somewhat in jeopardy; that if Tom, Dick 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. n 

and Harry show themselves to be so very much 
smarter men than the foreman, he may himself have 
to go, and Tom, Dick and Harry be put in his place. 
The consequence is that the man is smothered, 
things are made too warm for him; he leaves. And 
it is such things, the impossibility of closer touch be- 
tween the manufacturer and his workmen, the want 
of touch that you yourselves do not suffer from in 
this country, that has brought about a state of crys- 
tallization, if I may so put it, between the manu- 
facturer and his employees. It is a bad state of 
things. It is one, I think, that will be required to 
be altered in our country if we are going to hold our 
position in the markets of the world. 

Another point that has struck me casually — and 
I must tell you, gentlemen, I am only an amateur 
— is your up-to-date machinery. You are con- 
tinually encouraging your men to invent, and you 
do not view your machinery as part of your capital 
that must be kept there indefinitely. Directly 
there is something better you are ready to throw 
your machinery on the scrap heap and introduce that 
something better, because it makes for cheapness 
of production, and for higher wages. Consequently 
when the men are making higher wages a larger 
amount of profit is going into the manufacturer's 
pocket. 

Machinery I believe to be the working man's best 
friend. It should bring to him a larger amount of 
ease from his daily toil and sweat. He should be 
able to accomplish his day's work with greater ease 
to himself, and with a higher rate of remuneration, 



12 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 



and, personally, I am of the opinion that the intro- 
duction of labor-saving machinery into all factories 
should be welcomed, heartily welcomed, by the 
workman. It tends to lessen the cost of production, 
it tends, therefore, to create a market without which 
there would be neither capital for the manufacturer 
nor work for the workpeople, and it makes the lot 
of the workingman easier in . every respect. The 
workmen in England, I do not think as a whole, cer- 
tainly not in the past, have not welcomed machinery 
in the same way as the men in the United States 
have. But they must awaken to the fact that 
machinery has come to stay and must be helped 
in every direction, because as I have said, it is, I 
think, the workingman 's best friend. By the mod- 
ern machinery that you have introduced in the 
United States you have shown the world that it is 
possible to manufacture with a high rate of wages 
and yet hold the markets of the world in your hands. 
And in England both the manufacturers and the 
workingmen must recognize that that is a large 
factor in the future. I don't think, to be fair to the 
workingman, that it is altogether his fault. I think 
the greater proportion of fault lies with the manu- 
facturers themselves in England, because they have 
been slow to use machinery, and they have been 
quite prepared to keep the old machinery and sweat 
out of the workingman the work, so long as they are 
able to produce an article at a price that will leave 
them a margin of profit. But those days are passing. 
The workmen with their unions — and I am in favor 
of unions if properly run — are teaching the men that 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 



13 



they will not be exploited for the benefit of the 
master in the Old Country. It is a position which I 
myself have a great deal of sympathy with, because 
I do not think the manufacturers in the Old Country 
have viewed the interest of the men quite on the 
plane that the American manufacturers have here, and 
if we are going to hold our position in the world as a 
manufacturing country, both the manufacturers 
and the workingmen must welcome machinery, and 
above all, must run that machinery at its highest 
possible speed, getting the very greatest results 
out of it. I find here, as far as I am able to judge, 
as an amateur, that you are running your machinery 
at a greater speed than we are in England; you are 
getting more out of your machinery, you are using a 
smaller number of men in connection with those 
machines. I found in going through your shops 
machines being run — six, seven and eight, by one 
man. I do not think the workmen in England run 
the same amount of machines with the same number 
of men, and there I think the unions are largely to 
blame. I do not blame the unions altogether, be- 
cause, as I have just now said, it is because our em- 
ployers do not recognize the merits of the men and 
their title to a higher standard and to the higher 
wages, that they themselves have protected them- 
selves as it were, by not perhaps taking the very best 
out of machinery. It is a fallacy, and one that will 
have to be dropped in the future. But the working- 
men will require to know what is their position. 
They ask, " If we are prepared to run these machines 
at a higher speed, so as to produce all the machinery 



14 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 



is capable of, what is to be our share?" And I 
think they have a right to come to an understanding 
with the manufacturer as to what their share is to be. 

These are some of the points that I think will have 
to be fully emphasized, and I just now stated it is 
only as an amateur that I speak these things. It 
strikes me as a point that will have to be viewed 
very thoroughly by the delegates when they get back 
to their own country in the reports that they make, 
and the attitudes that the unions will take, altogether, 
in this great problem of capital and labor. 

Again, there is the question of hours. Hours are 
a very important point. I think those who really 
have the workmen's interest at heart do view the 
question of shorter hours with a feeling of respect and 
a feeling of right for their desire to have some time 
left after they have finished their labor to improve 
their minds and to devote themselves to other occu- 
pations. But the hours of labor are a very difficult 
problem. There is more than one view to be taken 
of it in the United States. You have to ask your- 
selves, What is the position in other countries? 
Are they working longer hours? Is it possible to 
bring them into line? And personally, I feel that if 
there is to be any solution to the hours question, it 
can only be done if the workingmen, not of the 
United States alone, but of the whole of Europe, are 
brought into line and prepared to adopt a policy 
whereby we shall all be on an equal footing. It is 
useless for the United States to seek an ideal of an 
eight-hour day if Germany is going to work ten. It 
means that the markets of the world will be glutted, 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. I5 

that is to say the free markets, by the manufactures 
of the country whose work is longer than that of the 
United States. We must come into line if there is to 
be any real progress in that, and these gentlemen, 
Mr. Gompers and Mr. Mitchell, who represent the 
workers of this country, I appeal to them as being the 
problem that they themselves must look into as to 
whether you will not injure the progress of this coun- 
try if you are going to try and introduce shorter 
hours here than are adopted in the Old Country. It is 
true you can adopt that policy if you are prepared 
to manufacture only for the United States. But I 
think the United States to-day — and I think pretty 
well everyone will agree with me in this room — has 
got beyond that point. With the resources you have 
— and the resources of the United States, I think, 
are larger than anybody can appreciate who has not 
been in this country — your natural position is to 
make not only for yourselves, but to manufacture 
largely for the world. And when you come to face 
that problem, there are a great many things to be 
looked at outside of the United States. 

We hear a great deal of restriction of output, boy- 
cott, unions, free labor, etc. Restriction of output 
is to my mind a fallacy the world over. It cannot be 
encouraged, it cannot be permitted. I do not think 
the intelligent workmen of any part of the world en- 
courage it. Our workmen who have been here — the 
representatives, rather, of the workmen — deny that 
there is any restriction of output in the Old Country 
I am glad to hear them do so. They deny that there 
is any of the "go slow "plan. I am delighted they 



1 6 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

take that attitude. It makes for better things. But 
I have heard it said that a man must be protected 
against himself. Well, gentlemen, that is begging 
the question. That is putting another phrase to 
exactly the same principle. There can be no restric- 
tion of output unless you are going to bring about a 
state of things that will mean death to manufacture, 
death to the workingmen, and death to the country. 
A man must be encouraged. A man must do his 
level best in the course of his day's work. He must 
be prepared to put forth his greatest energy and he 
must receive remuneration for that energy. Boycott 
is a thing I think that does not appeal to any one. 
Free labor is a sacred proposition that must be pro- 
tected, not only by the workman, but by everybody 
who desires freedom in this country. A man must be 
free to sell his labor to whom he pleases, whether he 
belongs to the unions or not. I myself am a union 
man; I am in favor of unions; I have shown that 
by the people that I have brought to this side of the 
water. But while I favor unions, I do not favor all 
that trade unionism does. There must be a perfect 
right for a man to join a union without intimidation. 
He must be interfered with by no one. The same 
applies to the free laborer who wishes to sell his prod- 
uce, his hand work, to any manufacturer. He must 
be free to do so unhindered, unincumbered in every 
shape and form, and were I a manufacturer, if any 
attempt was made to interfere with that freedom 
in my factory I would fight it to the bitter end. 
I would close my factory rather than submit to it. 
It is an important question. that one has to consider, 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 17 

this freedom, because unless we have freedom on both 
sides, both in unionism and in free labor, there can 
be no progress for any country. But while unionism 
is a point that I am very much in sympathy with, 
there are many things in connection with it that re- 
quire the consideration of the labor leaders. They 
must be free to organize, because, I think 
organized labor is good for the world. I think 
the organization of capital equally good for the 
masses. Personally, I would rather have to plead 
with organized capital on one side and organized 
labor on the other, than with a scattered mass of 
small manufacturers seeking to cut one another's 
throats in an unhealthy competition, and labor, unled, 
undisciplined and under-paid, such as we have seen 
it in England in the past and as we should see it 
to-day, were it not for the power of the unions, which, 
I think, as a whole have done a great deal of good. 

But there are other points with regard to the labor 
unions, and I address myself now more particularly 
to Mr. Gompers and Mr. Mitchell, who represent the 
labor of this country, and that is that they must 
look beyond the question of consumption in consid- 
ering the reduction of the hours of labor. If you 
intend to cultivate and keep the open markets of the 
world, there is the business part of it which requires 
investigation — the rates of freights, the rate of money 
exchange, the gold premiums in other countries, and 
a thousand and one things which largely affect the 
possibility of your being able to sell your goods in 
the market's of the world. It is an important matter, 
one entirely apart from the question of the hours 



18 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

of labor, and the speed of machinery and the wages 
of the men. There I think a strong and powerful 
responsibility rests upon your manufacturers. You 
cannot expect these gentlemen if they are sitting here 
holding the strings of labor and the variety of prob- 
lems which they have to face every day — you cannot 
expect them to look at these problems outside unless 
you give them an opportunity of doing so. You 
must choose from among the workingmen — and 
there are plenty of workingmen in this country with 
plenty of brains — you must choose your best men; 
you must help them, you must encourage them, you 
must give them the opportunity of going abroad 
in the same way that I have brought my men here 
to study these questions. This Civic Federation, 
with its large organization of manufacturers, should 
and will have an opportunity of enlightening those 
who seek enlightenment upon those points. 

Trusts have been very much abused in this country, 
from the standpoint of those who I think have 
not sufficiently looked into the proposition. Per- 
sonally I do not view trusts with any distrust. I 
think they are making for a better state of things, 
both for the manufacturer and the workingman. 
The small manufacturer cannot give conditions to 
the workingman such as a large manufacturer with 
unlimited capital and unlimited organization has 
at his command, and I believe that the workingmen 
of this country will study their best interests if they 
help the trusts. They are not in my opinion any 
menace to the country. They may tend to raise 
prices a little. If they do, the workingman will 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. i 9 

claim his share and will get it. We have seen only 
within the last few days since I have been in this 
country how some of the railroad companies have 
stepped forward and offered higher wages, unasked 
by their men. That is a principle that I think will 
be followed up, and if they do not offer the working- 
men will ask and will receive higher wages, because it 
is their due, as the prosperity of the country increases. 

These trusts will largely work their own salvation 
for good or bad. We have, for instance, the Oil 
Trust. It is one of the first trusts, and I think the 
most powerful, perhaps, in the country. What has 
been the effect of it? As far as I have been able 
to ascertain we get better and cheaper oil to-day 
under the trust than we did before, and that trust 
has accumulated a large capital, which capital is 
again employed in a variety of industries throughout 
the country to extend and improve this great empire, 
and has helped build up many 'of the large industries 
of to-day, which employ a very large amount of labor. 
If on the other hand the trusts abuse their position 
and give the public a worse article at a higher price, 
the evil will work its own cure. No corporation can, 
for any length of time, sell its article at a fictitious 
price. It is bound to bring in competition, and that 
competition will break down of its own weight the 
corporation that seeks to enslave you and make you 
pay an unfair price for your goods. 

Capital and labor are partners, and the sooner both 
capital and labor of all grades really realize that 
proposition, the better for the community at large. 
They are partners just as much as man and wife, and 



2 o INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

if you attempt to divorce them it brings trouble and 
breaks up happy homes. The same applies to the 
workman, representing, as he does, his share of labor, 
and the manufacturer, who represents capital. They 
are partners, and you cannot divorce them. The 
only question that arises is how ar3 they to divide 
the dollar which is being earned partially by capital 
on one side, and by labor on the other; that is the 
problem of the hour. The world has seen struggles 
going on for a share of that dollar. In England, in 
the past, I do not think labor has received its fair 
share, its fair wage. Capital has relegated to itself 
more than its share and trades unionism has been a 
very powerful factor in extorting, I may say, 
because it has been largely extorting, in the past, 
its fair share of the result of its labors. I am 
sorry to have to use that expression, extorting, but 
I feel that, perhaps, strong as it is, it is not too strong 
for the position as it was in England — not perhaps 
to-day, but in the past — when labor was miserably 
underpaid. 

But, as I have said, there is this dollar to divide 
and how can it be divided equitably? We see this 
change that has come over the world; it is a change 
that is taking place daily with the large corporations 
and trusts. With these which are starting, which 
have not yet been incorporated, I cannot see why a 
stun of money in the shape of stock should not be 
placed on one side to represent labor. Say, for 
argument's sake, there is a corporation being formed 
with one hundred millions of dollars ; why could you 
not take thirty, forty, fifty, sixty — I don't pretend 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 21 

to fix the amount — millions of dollars and place it on 
one side, and say that represents labor, while the 
other side represents capital? The labor side of it 
shall be banked in trust for the workingman, 
and that shall be distributed at the end of the year 
pro rata, according to the Avages that the men are 
earning. It would simplify the matter. It would 
give the workingman a direct interest in the work 
that is going on, and without that interest, and unless 
you have the hearts of your workingmen with you, 
there can be no real solid progress with regard to your 
manufactures. You cannot have workingmen who 
are sullenly doing their day's work, feeling that they 
have nothing to live for when their day's work is 
finished. They must be partners, truly, in every 
sense of the word. 

To these other corporations that have their con- 
cerns in operation I must confess I have my own ideal. 
I do not say that it is impossible to-day, but I think 
it may become possible in the future. That ideal 
is this — perhaps it may not come in my lifetime, but 
it is one towards which we should all struggle — a 
minimum wage to the men; interest on capital; a 
fund for the expansion of your works, the same as 
though you were conducting your business on every- 
day principles, and a fund for depreciation and the 
replacing of your machinery ; old age pensions for the 
men; and then the balance equally divided. If 
one could arrive at such an ideal, it would, I think, 
make the men think that they were partners indeed. 
They would be receiving their full share of the work 
on one side; capital would be receiving its interest 



22 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

and a share of the profits on the other. It is an 
ideal to-day, I know. I am speaking ahead of the 
times, but unless both employers and employees can 
arrive at some basis of partnership, things cannot 
go on indefinitely. The world is becoming educated. 
The masses are feeling that they have a right, a just 
right, to a share of the profits. The whole question 
is, How can that be arrived at without trouble, 
without friction. 

The Civic Federation has undertaken a great work, 
a work that I think the whole of the people of the 
United States should be in sympathy with. It 
is attempting logically to bring capital and labor 
into closer touch, to discuss the various problems 
that affect both sides, calmly and dispassionately. 
It is seeking to bring about arbitration and concilia- 
tion. Arbitration and conciliation have been subjects 
that attracted our attention in England for a number 
of years, and I venture to think that we have got ahead 
of you in that respect. We are older, and we have got 
our boards of arbitration and conciliation — the Cham- 
ber of Commerce, the Board of Trade, and the various 
trades organizations who have their own joint boards 
of employers and employees. But the Civic Feder- 
ation of this country has taken up one point that 
appeals to me very strongly, and I think it has 
appealed with equal force to the whole of my dele- 
gates. What it says is this: " Do not wait until your 
building is on fire and blazing. All the water that 
you can pump on it from every engine you can gather 
together in New York will not extinguish it, or if it 
does, it leaves it a wreck. Step in with your one 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 



23 



bucket of water, which you can throw upon the 
flames immediately they show any signs of breaking 
out, and you will be effective." In other words, I 
say that the work of the Civic Federation in bringing 
capital and labor together at a round table, to speak 
of their conditions directly there, is a great work 
that must have an everlasting influence upon this 
great problem of capital and labor. I believe my 
delegates have been very much struck with this par- 
ticular attitude of the Civic Federation, and those 
who were here in New York a few days ago signed a 
declaration in favor of it, asking that a similar institu- 
tion might, if possible, be introduced into Great Britain, 
and saying that on their return to their own societies, 
when they would issue their report, they intended to 
lay special stress upon this work, which they thought 
was making for peace and good. 

I can only say in regard to this work of the Civic 
Federation I am heartily in sympathy with it, because 
it is a benefit to humanity and makes for a better 
condition as between labor and capital. The best 
men of this country have undertaken that work, and 
the responsibility rests with them to see it through, 
and to cultivate and seek all these vast influences 
that they can bring to bear. An equal responsi- 
bility rests with those who represent labor, to see that 
they are all brought into line to support this organiza- 
tion, because without something of this description 
capital and labor will ever be at war. 

I wish it every success; I believe it is to be a nu- 
cleus in making for better times and conditions. I 
have also to thank the Civic Federation, and I thank 



2 4 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 



them from the bottom of my heart, for the assistance 
they have given to my commission. When I was in- 
troduced to them, six manufacturers and Senator 
Hanna and others, they stepped out and said: "Mr. 
Mosely, you bring your men and we will co-operate 
with them. We have got the situation in hand, both 
capital and labor. Mr. Gompers and Mr. Mitchell, 
representing labor, will give you every assistance; 
we who represent capital will influence manufacturers 
to open their doors, and I think you will be given 
an opportunity of seeing everything." That promise 
has been more than realized. Every door has been 
held open by the manufacturers in the most liberal 
way. The gentlemen who represent labor on the 
other side, Mr. Gompers, who is at the head of the 
American Federation of Labor, placed in every town 
we have visited men connected with all the businesses 
with which my people are connected, to take my men 
in hand and show them all around ; to take them to the 
factories and explain to them the conditions of the 
workingmen, the wages they are earning, and the 
conditions under which they are living, and I be- 
lieve my people will go back with a big, broad con- 
ception of what this country is doing for the laboring 
people. 

Mr. Gompers, on behalf of the gentlemen who are 
with me, will you allow me to thank you and Mr. 
Mitchell for the great service which you have rendered 
to the workers on this side? And Senator Hanna, 
again, as representing the manufacturers, will you 
please accept my sincere thanks for the very liberal 
way in which the people of this country have opened 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE 25 

the doors to my delegation as a whole? Gentlemen, 
allow me to thank you. (Applause.) 

The Chairman : I am very sure that it is our desire 
to return the compliment and thank the gentleman 
for his very wise and unselfish dissertation upon this 
great question. Before we adjourn for the afternoon, 
I want to hear from one of the gentlemen representing 
the workingmen of England. I will now introduce 
Mr. Walls, the general secretary of the Blast Furnace- 
men's Association. 

Mr. P. Walls: Senator Hanna and Gentlemen — 
After the exhaustive and, I think, fairly outspoken 
words of Mr. Mosely, which, although I believe were 
justified, occupied a considerable amount of your 
valuable time, I will be exceedingly brief. I have 
two reasons for being so. One is that I have no desire 
to anticipate my report that I am expected to make 
when I return to England; and another is, that I 
know your time is too valuable for me to occupy 
more than a few minutes. 

We have been exceedingly pleased with the re- 
ception that we have received everywhere. We have 
been very favorably impressed with your immense 
country, your immense natural resources, your im- 
mense riches, and I might add, your immense ma- 
chinery — very much impressed, indeed. Still, per- 
haps, it would be possible to exaggerate the differences 
between this and the Old Country in many instances. 

They are not nearly so large as seem to loom up in 
the minds of — well, might I say, the pressmen of the 
United States. (Laughter and applause.) Not near- 



26 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

ly so large as I believe they seem to many of those 
in the States with whom we have come in contact, but 
I think we realize that there is a difference; that we 
know our people have had difficulties. All their 
works are much older. All yours are new, and in 
laying down a new plant it is always to be expected 
that you will adopt the most up-to-date machinery. 
Any man understands, I think, we are getting closer, 
and as to the matters of details of some of the ques- 
tions mentioned, as to the matters of mining ma- 
chines, I would like to remind, well, Mr. Mosely, that 
there are machines and machines. (Laughter.) 
You have some of your machines that can practically 
mind themselves, while some of ours require a great 
deal of minding. We have all these things to con- 
sider. 

We were impressed also with the question of the 
management of your public concerns. After thirty 
years of public service and management as a public 
workmen, I must say that we have not received that 
encouragement in the Old Country. If a man under- 
takes to offer any suggestions, you all know it is just 
possible he will find himself on the way to some other 
concern looking for employment. There are, while 
that is the rule, exceptions to the rule. There is, no 
doubt, that with the exceptions of the great leaders, 
that that is the rule. 

Now with reference to your Civic Federation. We 
are pleased that there is such an institution, but I 
would like to remove some of what I consider a delu- 
sion, in that matter, so far as we are concerned. 
There seems to be a kind of belief that we are sadly 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 



27 



in need of such an institution. Now, I admit, sir, 
it would be useful, but we have our own conciliation 
boards and our own joint committees, and have our 
employers and workingmen sitting on them, such as 
a board of trade, which meets and discusses the situa- 
tion. We have severe troubles at times, gentlemen ; 
we cannot help it, when there is a lack of experience 
on both sides, where the workman is probably a 
little impetuous and where the employer has a little 
horror as to the workman's disposition. Where that 
condition exists we sometimes experience trouble. 
On that question we would like such an institution 
as the Civic Federation. We have had many people 
in their individual capacity who have filled that par- 
ticular. We have had men, members of the 
county councils and others, who have on many occa- 
sions managed to bring together the contending par- 
ties and lead to an amicable conclusion and settle- 
ment. 

One of the things, sir, that I admire about the 
Federation, is that it does not pretend to interfere 
with anybody's business. The moment a disinterest- 
ed party who does not understand the technicalities 
of the question from either side attempts to put their 
finger in that pie, the pie is spoiled. (Applause.) 
Now what I admire in the Civic Federation is that it 
only pretends to bring the contending parties to- 
gether, so they can see that each one has only got one 
head and that they are not the monsters which each 
supposed the other to be, and that there is right on 
both sides. 

I beg to thank the American employers for the way 



2 8 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

they have thrown open their gates to us and the way 
that they have opened everything to us. I beg also 
to thank the American workingmen for the reception 
we have received from the workingmen. There were 
no jealousies whatever; we were all friends and broth- 
ers, and I thank you in this audience for the little 
time you have given me. (Applause.) 
Adjourned. 

The second session of the meeting was called to 
order by Senator Hanna at 2:30 p. m. 

The Chairman: Gentlemen of the committee, we 
are through with the picturesque, and we will proceed 
now with business. Mr. Adams has telegraphed that 
his train is delayed and he will not be here for fifteen 
or twenty minutes. Under the circumstances, I am 
going to take the responsibility of calling upon 
people, to give opportunity for an exchange of ideas, 
and I now call upon Archbishop Ireland. 

Archbishop John Ireland: Mr. President and 
Gentlemen — When Senator Hanna speaks I obey. 
The year that has gone by has confirmed the origi- 
nators of the Civic Federation in their conviction that 
they are engaged in a great and salutary work, that 
of striving to bring together, face to face, capital and 
labor so that the one shall understand the other, so 
that the one shall be willing to perform its duty toward 
the other, and that in this manner industrial peace 
may reign over the country. Our worthy chair- 
man, you will remember, stated to us last year that 
deep down in his heart he felt no greater work could 
be given as a task to the statesman than to aid in 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 



29 



leading up to industrial peace. And I say that no 
greater task could be given to the minister of Christ's 
Gospel than to contribute in some little way to es- 
tablish this peace. 

It is not surprising that there do arise between cap- 
ital and labor disputes and collisions. Humanity is 
entering into a new period of life and of development. 
All developments, all growths, whether in a physical 
or a moral body, produce feelings of uneasiness; 
there is the sentiment that new conditions exist, and 
that the moment has come for new adjustments and 
new adaptabilities. As we follow the history of in- 
dustrial movements century after century, we see 
periodically new conditions arising and efforts made 
to meet them — often amid much anxiety and much 
travail. To-day the conditions which confront us 
are not such as to give discouragement; rather they 
are such as to give hope and comfort. The great in- 
dustrial prosperity marking the present times has 
come largely from the growth of the human mind. 
Men have gone out into all parts of the world, made 
discoveries of all the resources of nature, and pre- 
pared humanity to lay hold of these resources. 
Mind has grown in all the classes of society. To-day 
the workingman is a thinking being. He has read; 
he has studied; he knows what may be done; he feels 
what should be done. Capital in its ambition to de- 
velop the resources of nature to their highest point, 
labor in its ambition to secure for itself a just and 
reasonable proportion of the wealth that is being 
created, come somewhat into conflict. One asks, 
"Have I my rights?" The other answers, "Have I 



30 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

mine 5 " So it is in all movements in the life of hu- 
manity that have made for the greatness of humanity. 
What seems at present to threaten the public peace, 
and even to delay the march of prosperity, is but a 
precursory sign of greater social happiness, and of 
greater social wealth. There is no doubt but that 
when the difficulties of the moment have settled, 
society at large will be far happier and far more 
prosperous. Nor are we to imagine that solutions 
are ready made, and that at a given moment we can 
just exactly say what measures must be taken to 
remedy immediate ills. The human mind is not able 
at once to grasp all the factors in a problem; it is 
not able to understand at once all the circumstances 
which surround that problem. Hence, time is 
necessary. It is not at one meeting, it is not in one 
year, that all the industrial problems will be solved. 
We must be patient. At the same time we must feel 
sure that solutions are coming. Humanity has suffi- 
cient mind and sufficient good will to settle all 
matters in which it is vitally interested. Its history, 
century after century, shows very plainly that what- 
ever the conflict of the moment, peace and victory 
did follow. Not only must we have confidence in 
humanity itself; we must have confidence in the 
All-ruling Providence which has placed humanity 
upon this earth, and which directs it towards its 
ultimate goal. 

And so we enter hopefully into the discussion of 
relations between capital and labor. This is the 
immediate purpose of the Civic Federation. Men 
come together, representing the different classes of 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 31 

society, employers and employees as well as what is 
called the general public, and they say: ''Let us see 
what is to be done." This is much: for earnest 
seeking is half the finding. 

The manner of proceeding of the Civic Federation 
commends it to us. It would not do to have the 
capitalists by themselves. It would not do to have 
laborers by themselves, for the simple reason that 
one party, not knowing the mind of the other, would 
be likely to be one-sided in its conclusions, more or 
less biassed by self-interest and prejudice. Bring 
both classes together; let them meet frequently. If 
anything more were to be desired in the methods of 
the Civic Federation, it would be that its members 
would come more frequently together. The world is 
moving on at such a rapid pace, industrialism is tak- 
ing such terrific strides, that it is scarcely enough to 
hold one meeting a year to ask what may be done, 
what thoughts may be put out before the country. 
But however often or however seldom the members 
meet, certainly the method chosen is a proper one, 
that of bringing representatives of the different 
classes together. It is the test of a civilized people 
to act in this manner. In barbarous days men never 
thought of asking their opponents what rights were 
on their side. The one question was how to rush 
quickly upon the enemy and extinguish him. Not so 
where civilization reigns. There the question is, 
What is it that is right ? What is it that justice sug- 
gests? We know better what justice suggests when 
we have heard both sides. 

Certainly the prosperity of the country demands 



32 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 



that as rapidly as possible classes come to understand 
one another. Just see what this late strike in the 
coal regions has done in the country. The amount 
of money lost — of money unearned, is beyond calcu- 
lation. The owners of mines have lost immense 
sums ; the miners have deprived themselves of earn- 
ings for four or five or six months; the public at 
large has suffered. If the strike had continued a 
little longer the whole country would have entered 
into the rigors of the winter season with danger of 
untold suffering. Now surely there is no lover of 
this country, no lover of his kind, who will not say 
that it is his duty to do all that he can to prevent 
any such incidents occurring in America. Let us 
hope and trust that the lessons derived from this late 
strike are such that a strike of the kind will hence- 
forward be an impossibility. Let us so educate 
the country at large upon this question that all shall 
feel that their first duty is peace, union and harmony. 
We are doing a work of patriotism. What is it that 
gives us a great and good country? It is not vic- 
tories on battle fields — glorious as these are. What 
we need for a great country is a happy, contented 
people, and what we need in order to have a happy, 
contented people is a good understanding between 
all classes of the people. This has been the mis- 
fortune of humanity; it so easily divides itself into 
separate classes. One class thinks only of itself, 
and how it may prey more easily upon the other. 
There will be no happy people until all realize the 
great truth dictated by reason, dictated by religion, 
that we are all brothers; that no one can find happi- 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 33 

ness,if he must consider that not far from him there 
are fellow beings in suffering and in want. Indus- 
trial peace, so desirable in any land, is particularly 
so in America, in a democracy such as America is. 
America, for weal or for woe, is essentially an organ- 
ized democracy. The people reign. We must have 
the people, the masses at large, the full citizenship 
of the country, happy and contented. We must have 
all classes feel that other classes acknowledge their 
rights, and are willing to think of them as well as of 
themselves. 

When at first an organization enters into the field 
of action it scarcely knows what is before it. A 
year ago the Civic Federation was formed; to-day 
we have far better conception of the possibilities 
that await it. As it is, we have by the mere fact 
of our organization put strongly before the whole 
country the principle of harmony between capital 
and labor. We have affected favorably public opinion . 
Largely through the influence of this Federation the 
idea is abroad that there must be an understanding 
between capital and labor, a recognition of the 
rights of one class by the other. At times in par- 
ticular cases we may have failed to bring peace, 
but the principle was upheld. No matter how 
difficult the problem, once public opinion is com- 
mitted to seeking a solution, the solution is sure 
to come. If we were to go out of existence to-day 
as an organization, we could write as our epitaph, 
"Well done, good and faithful servant," because the 
Civic Federation during its brief existence held high 
before the minds of the people of America the 



34 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

great principles of harmony, of peace through 
arbitration, of the common brotherhood of men. 

Our president and our secretary could well say 
if they were to go into details, that here and there 
many disputes have been actually settled by the 
Civic Federation during the last year. People are 
captious, and if they can find one point where we did 
not succeed they will talk of that and forget the 
nine points where we did succeed. There are several 
instances on our records where, by bringing together 
employers and employees, difficulties were removed, 
and strikes and disagreements were brought to an 
end. Difficulties were removed when men simply 
saw one another. This is what has happened dur- 
ing the past year, and this is what is going to happen 
more and more in the future through the efforts 
of the Civic Federation. The Civic Federation 
has been organized; it will stay organized. It 
has begun work; it will continue to work. 

What is very much needed in the country to-day 
we shall strive to give, as we are giving it in our 
present conferences — education on industrial ques- 
tions. Men who are very learned in many other 
things know little of sociology. The reason is 
not difficult to be found. It is a new thing. Men 
have not studied it heretofore. Many, though well 
meaning, are at sea in regard to it. Let us create 
a taste for the study of sociology. Let the attention 
of the people be concentrated upon industrial 
problems. It is not so much what we say between 
these four walls; it is what our words stimulate 
to have said through the country at large. 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 



35 



"Well, what is going to happen," I hear it some- 
times said. "Will there not be a revolution?" Why, 
not at all; not surely in the United States, where 
men are accustomed to public discussion; where 
men feel that the public welfare is the crowning apex 
of the efforts of all; where all have a sense of civic 
duty; where all love their country. I am not 
afraid of any discussion on any question in America. 
I think we shall be able to solve all problems quietly, 
and with time; but we must have patience while we 
are solving them; for we do not expect to give 
solutions, as I said before, all in a moment. I have 
naught but brightest hopes for industrialism through- 
out the world at large. See what has happened 
to-day. Intelligent men from England come to 
America to study the conditions of our country. 
They will go back to their homes and make reports 
of what they have seen. You notice the thought- 
fulness of those gentlemen. You notice the wish 
they have had to arrive at the best solutions. And 
what is happening in England is happening more 
or less in other countries. No doubt we hear of 
perils to come from extremists. Whenever there 
is any movement extremists will attach themselves 
to it. We are at times very singular. We want 
every movement to be perfect in all its steppings. 
That is impossible. There will be extremists on 
the side of labor, as there will be on the side of capi- 
tal. This does not mean to say that capital has 
not its rights, that labor has not its rights, that 
labor and capital will not be allowed their rights. 
There is a better day coming. And who will not 



36 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

rejoice, be he laborer or capitalist, be he rich or 
poor, in the prospect that the multitudes, the mil- 
lions, are to see rising before them a brighter sun. 
For let us say what we will of to-day or to-morrow, 
in past ages the children of toil have had a hard lot. 
The time has come when we feel that the masses of 
humanity are to be better cared for. The time has 
come when rights shall be given to every man, to 
every child, because these rights are a divine crea- 
tion, and men cannot hold back from their fellows 
what God has granted to them. We rejoice that 
this brighter sun is rising in the sky. And while 
the millions of toilers feel that public sentiment 
leavened with Christian teaching is going out to 
them and is determined to grant them their rights, 
they in return, I am very sure, will feel that it is 
their duty to recognize the rights of others. I am 
not afraid of any of these radical populistic or com- 
munistic movements with which we are sometimes 
threatened, and with which the enemies of labor 
would sometimes seek to indentify labor. The la- 
borer is intelligent; the laborer knows that his own 
prosperity is linked with the prosperity of others; 
the laborer understands that he personally stands 
or falls as the whole social fabric stands or falls. 
Let us give to every man his rights, and by giving 
to every man his rights we educate him into the 
higher principles of justice and religion, through 
which he will concede to others their rights. Where- 
ever there is a mind, we must enlighten it ; wherever 
there is a conscience, we must awaken it; wherever 
there is an arm, we must strengthen it, and by 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 



37 



strengthening every individual member of society 
we strengthen all society. But be all this as it may, 
there is a new era before the world, an era of better 
and more effective effort, an era of general prosperity, 
an era of awakening of livelier sentiments of justice 
and of charity; and to have contributed somewhat 
to the hastening of this era, to have by some little 
work or by some little act helped on the work of 
humanity toward this higher plane of brotherhood 
and of Christianity, is a task that any man may be 
well proud of; a task the accomplishment of which 
cannot but be most agreeable to the Father of all 
men, the Almighty God above us. 



The Chairman: The next speaker is Mr. C. U 
Carpenter, representing the labor department of the 
National Cash Register Company, of Dayton, Ohio. 

LABOR DEPARTMENTS FOR LARGE INDUS- 
TRIAL ORGANIZATIONS. 

THE labor problem now confronting us can never 
be solved until capital is organized with the same 
care and thoroughness as labor. This fact is be- 
coming clearer every day, and it behooves every 
manufacturer to give the closest consideration to it. 
Experience has shown the necessity for strong or- 
ganizations of capital to meet and bargain with the 
existing organizations of labor. That both sides will 
be greatly benefited cannot be doubted. 

To be effective there should exist national organ- 
izations of associated industries, local associations of 
these same manufacturers; all to be linked together 
by a national body. The similarity of this plan to 
that of the labor unions will be noted. 

The plan of forming a labor department in large 
industrial organizations is, however, most important. 
Only by some such method can that old-time "per- 
sonal touch with employees" be restored. The lack 
of this personal, direct touch is responsible for much 
of the difficulty of the present day. 

38 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 39 

No better introduction to the discussion of the 
work of a labor department in large industrial or- 
ganizations can be given than a quotation from Her- 
mann Justi's address on "Arbitration," delivered at 
Minneapolis some months ago. 

Organization of the Employer Class. 

"All talk of arbitration or anything akin to it is well 
nigh idle, unless we take account of organization — not only 
as applied to employees, but organization as applied to 
employer. Whether we oppose it or favor it, organized 
labor has come to stay, and it must therefore be considered 
because we must deal with it. The employer class must 
organize to a point of excellence and efficiency where or- 
ganized labor will respect it. 

"I am convinced that only by organization can common 
labor get the maximum wages for its hire. I am equally 
well convinced that only through organization of the em- 
ployer class will capital obtain from organized labor the 
most and the best service in return for the wages paid. 

"It is my belief that all great departments of industry 
must have their departments of labor if serious friction is 
to be avoided, and wisely adjusted. When we pause to 
reflect, is it not remarkable that all the departments of 
great business enterprises have their especially appointed 
heads to direct and to manage, with the exception of the 
department of labor? This is allowed to get along as best 
it can, and yet what department of any great business enter- 
prise is of equal importance? This seems the more inex- 
plicable and indefensible in view of the fact that when 
we reduce the whole problem of business competition to 
the concrete form there are only two propositions after all 
with which the business man has to deal; the price of labor 
and the rate of interest." 

And are not these absolute facts? What work re- 
quires more specialization, more fair-mindedness, 



4 o INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

more continuous and tactful attention than the hand- 
ling of the labor question ? And yet upon whom does 
this delicate and difficult problem actually fall? Is 
it handled by a department composed of men specially 
fitted for this question by their education, broad 
study of labor, knowledge of labor conditions all over 
the country ; men selected for their fair-mindedness 
and practical experience in handling large bodies of 
men, and of such character as to gain the confidence 
of the workmen; men of experience in making labor 
contracts and who know where the rights of labor 
end and the transgressions upon the rights of capital 
begin, even according to the Union Constitution? 

No! this is seldom the case. The active, actual, 
everyday working policy of handling labor, the part 
that is vital to the workmen and the manufacturer, 
is dictated not by him but by his foreman. The 
men who are superintending the departments are 
exercising the direct and consequently the real po- 
tential influence over the men for good or bad. No 
matter what the manufacturer may do for his men, 
no matter what his actual policy may be, their feeling 
toward the firm is governed more by their feeling 
toward the man who has them in daily control than 
by any other factor. 

The methods used by the foremen in handling their 
men, and the system of pay, may well be considered 
carefully, because they affect the worker directly, and 
consequently have great influence upon him. 

When once trouble does begin, the proposition 
becomes involved with the feelings and probably the 
prejudices of all the men who have attempted to 



IX DC ST RIAL CONFERENCE. 4 i 

handle it. By the time it reaches the employer there 
accompanies it a large amount of bad feeling and 
doubt of good intention on the part of both parties. 
The proposal is at times too absurd for the employer 
to entertain. The workmen, however, have become 
so embittered as to insist upon its fulfillment. Or, 
on the other hand, the employer will often see in the 
proposal a large element of justice which he would 
have admitted without hesitation if the propositions 
had come to him "first handed." He, however, often 
feels obliged to refuse the request for the sake of dis- 
cipline and his desire to stand by his subordinates. 

Many bitter strikes have occurred under such con- 
ditions ; strikes which would have been easily avoided 
had the question been fairly and promptly met at 
the very inception of trouble. 

Gentlemen, "the time to stop trouble is before it 
begins." Some plan of organization must be adopted 
to insure this. Some method should exist whereby 
employer and men could get together before trouble 
begins. 

I am far from saying that all the demands and 
actions of unions are fair. We know from experience 
how unreasonable they often are ; but a large number 
of them are fair, and prompt attention, together with 
the determination to do absolute justice both to the 
company and to the men, and to stand by what is 
right and to fight for it if necessary, will accomplish 
most desirable results. 

Consider the actual questions that give rise to 
strikes, lock-outs, and arbitration and conciliation 
committees. Consider the gist of the questions that 



42 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

these important bodies must consider after the 
trouble has reached the point where, for the sake of 
the manufacturer, the workman or the public, they 
must be called upon. Are not they the practical 
questions of wages, hours, conditions under which 
men work, discharges, unreasonable demands, un- 
justifiable and unreasonable rules and practices, 
restrictions upon employment, limitation of output, 
etc.? Should we not begin at the lower end of this 
problem and provide some adequate means whereby 
the manufacturer and his men can come face to face 
and consider these questions fairly and squarely, 
before matters get to such a serious issue as to render 
it necessary to call in outsiders to make a settlement — 
settlements rarely wholly acceptable to either party 
to the dispute and which, when finally accepted, 
leave behind a bitter feeling of resentment? 

Both logic and practical experience in handling 
large bodies of both union and non-union men have 
proven the necessity of labor departments. No 
matter how capital may organize, its organization 
will be lacking its greatest element of strength and 
influence unless there are formed such special de- 
partments to handle the question. 

The functions of a labor department, as I will 
describe them briefly, are such as have been devel- 
oped and found necessary in actual experience in 
organizing and developing this work. 

WORK OF A LABOR DEPARTMENT. 

Such a department should be in control of the 
labor question. It should have the power to in- 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 43 

vestigate and correct any existing conditions which 
are unfair to the workmen — conditions which impair 
their efficiency as workmen and development as 
men. On the other hand, it should investigate 
those practices on the part of the workmen Avhich are 
unjust to the firm and should endeavor to have them 
corrected. In actual experience great good has 
been accomplished by investigating and taking up 
with the workmen such matters as restriction of 
output, opposition to improved machinery, unjust 
wage demands, unreasonable opposition to justifi- 
able discharges, etc. Many important matters bear- 
ing directly upon economy of production, efficiency 
of the workmen, and discipline of the shop have been 
amicably settled, that would probably have ulti- 
mately resulted in serious trouble had they been 
handled through the usual course in the usual manner. 
All complaints of workmen and company or 
foremen should be promptly considered, and de- 
cisively settled before they have had time to grow 
into unwarranted importance. It is a cardinal 
principle that all decisions must be along the lines 
of justice and fairness. 

WAGE QUESTION. 

The importance of a just and scientific wage 
system, both from the standpoint of satisfying the 
workmen and of producing work with the greatest 
economy, can hardly be over estimated. The lack 
of attention to this matter causes most of the trouble 
between employees and employer. 

This department may also investigate and install 



44 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

such improvements in working and sanitary con- 
ditions as experience has shown to be practical. 
Such work is thoroughly justified, both on the ground 
of humanity and of economy of production. 

INCREASING EFFICIENCY OF FACTORY FORCE. 

Other important questions, such as employment, 
discharge and improving the personnel of the work- 
men, should be in charge of such a department. 
Systematic steps to separate the poor workmen from 
the efficient, for their education and improvement, 
or, in case they prove totally inefficient, their dis- 
charge, are important factors in improving the 
working efficiency of a factory force. 

The study of associations of labor and capital 
and an acquaintance with legal decisions bearing 
upon the relations and rights of capital, as well as 
labor, are often very important. 

The work of such a department will be largely 
ineffective unless it has the support and co-operation 
of the foremen or men who are in direct charge of 
departments. These men should be brought into 
sympathy with its aims and purposes. Generally 
the responsibility for this question is something 
that they will gladly relinquish, but the seeming 
interference with their pre-conceived ideas of the 
boundaries of their own authority will be at first 
resented. 

FOREMEN'S MEETINGS 

These men must also be instructed and trained 
in the best methods of handling men ; most effective 
ways of increasing their working efficiency in a 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 45 

manner not detrimental to their health; of increas- 
ing their interest in their work, and, especially in 
union shops, the most effective methods of securing 
the best results for the company and men under 
union conditions. 

Certain it is that this department must be so con- 
ducted as to deserve and win the confidence of the 
workmen in its fairness and firmness. Its decisions 
must be along the lines of honesty and justice for 
both company and men. Unless the foremen will 
give their support to this policy much of the effect 
of its good work will be lost. 

In order to gain the desired results, weekly meet- 
ings should be held of all foremen and assistants, 
for the purpose of discussing the problems that they 
meet every day and of finding some solution to 
them. Such meetings may properly be termed 
Foremen's Schools. 

Here should be discussed frankly and fairly union- 
ism in all its phases. The difficulties they exper- 
ience in regard to it, and methods of overcoming 
their trouble; the best methods of handling men 
and getting good work from them; methods of en- 
couraging workmen to take more interest in their 
work; methods of encouraging all workmen to at- 
tend their union meetings, and take an active part 
in the proceedings; encouraging good workmen to 
act as officers and members of union committees. In 
many cases in my experience foremen were found 
making it so unpleasant for union shop committee- 
men that only the worst and most radical men would 
serve; the better and more conservative men not 



46 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

only would not serve on committees but would not 
even attend meetings, not caring to be identified 
with the movement, especially in view of the fore- 
men's feelings. 

In short, such a method of education should force 
a homogeneous policy of firm and fair methods in 
handling unionism throughout the entire establish- 
ment. 

PRACTICAL EXAMPLE. 

The only test of a theory worth considering is 
the result of a practical application of it. I pro- 
pose to give you a concrete example of actual re- 
sults of such a labor department, organized under 
most stringent union conditions. 

The National Cash Register Company was thor- 
oughly unionized about three years ago. We 
now have represented in our factory eight Inter- 
national Union organizations; fourteen local unions, 
and about twenty-six shop committees. As has 
been described in the press , we soon had in full bloom 
all of the features of unionism that render it dis- 
tasteful to manufacturers. We experienced the 
restriction of the employment of men, and the 
greatest difficulty in discharging incompetent men. 
Many of the workmen's complaints were just, but 
many were of a most unreasonable character. They 
imposed the most stringent -methods of restriction 
of output and earnings; their principles regarding 
these being printed in their by-laws. Fines were 
imposed if a workman should earn over a stipulated 
amount per hour. 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 47 

The labor department was formed by Mr. Patter- 
son, largely upon the lines laid down in this ad- 
dress. By carrying out the policy outlined, es- 
pecially in regard to being fair and just, we have, 
I am safe in saying, gained the confidence of our 
workmen. The radical demands have practically 
all ceased. The men seem now to limit their com- 
plaints to those which are fair. The illiberal and 
unreasonable portion of the restrictions of employ- 
ment and discharge have been done away with. 
There is now on foot among the men a movement 
to do away entirely with the restriction of output 
and earnings. In fact, I have just received infor- 
mation that leads me to believe that this has al- 
ready been done away with in one large department , 
and that their action will be followed by a similar 
one on the part of the entire factory. A very differ- 
ent feeling between employer and employee now 
exists in the factory. 

While we do not by any means claim that the 
end has yet been reached, and that we have ideal 
union conditions, the position of both men and com- 
pany have changed to such a degree that we feel 
that we are certainly justified in considering that 
we are on the right track. 

If your shop is unionized it is of course for you 
to choose whether you will continue to fight and 
keep up the strife, or whether you will make the 
best of it and do what you can to develop both 
your organization and the union's along liberal 
lines. 

Whether or not it is unionized, I advise you to 



48 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

make a careful, unbiased investigation of actual 
conditions and ascertain what causes for dissatis- 
faction exist between your workmen and yourself. 
See that the opportunity is given them to earn a 
wage such as the business can afford to pay under 
such a system of pay as is both economical and 
just. Provide them with sanitary conditions which 
modern industrial science has demonstrated pays 
you to give them, and which humanitarian prin- 
ciples show are just and fair. Hear their complaints, 
correct promptly all evils, insist that they do their 
share, and that they too correct the evils that they 
are responsible for, and the desired result will in 
time be forthcoming. 

If you recognize the tendency toward organization 
and your shop is unionized try to establish relations 
of confidence between yourselves and your em- 
ployees and provide some means whereby you and 
they can meet on common ground, so that each can 
learn of those things that are unfair in the attitude 
or conduct of the other and consider these in the 
spirit of justice. This does not by any means imply 
a weakened policy of handling the question. It is a 
policy of strength rather than weakness. 

Mr. G. C. Sikes: I have been asked to discuss the 
subject of arbitration as related to public service 
corporations, and especially to explain to you the 
position taken in this question by the Chicago Street 
Railway Commission, of which I was secretary. In 
what I may have to say I will confine myself largely 
to street railways, as that is the matter with which 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 4g 

I am most familiar, but the principle of my argument 
would apply as well to lighting, telephone and water 
companies in the municipal field, and to railroad and 
telegraph companies in the national field. I am as 
much opposed probably as any one in this room to 
what is commonly known as compulsory arbitration 
as applied to industry generally. I believe such a 
policy is contrary to right principles and to American 
ideas, and that it is likely, in the long run at least, 
to be productive of harm and to lead to stagnation. 
But I differentiate the public service corporation 
from the ordinary industrial corporation. My propo- 
sition is that the public service corporation should be 
required, as one of the conditions of its franchise 
grant, to agree to submit disputes with its employees 
to arbitration. 

As you may know, the street railway situation in 
Chicago has been a subject of agitation for some time. 
The principal franchises of the companies begin to 
expire soon, and consequently the whole subject has 
given rise to extensive discussion. A commission 
was appointed to consider the whole subject and 
recommend a franchise policy for the city of Chicago. 
Among other things, that commission gave attentionto 
the matter of labor policy in connection with franchise 
grants. Its specific, recommendation was as follows: 

The public has a right to demand uninterrupted 
street railway service. To that end, it has a right 
to insist that everything reasonably possible be done 
to prevent strikes and lock-outs. Companies, in ac- 
cepting grants, should be required to submit all 
labor disputes to arbitration. 



5 o INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

Perhaps the most enlightening thing I can do will 
be to read from the report of the Street Railway 
Commission the argument therein set forth in sup- 
port of the recommendation made. 

"European and Canadian cities very commonly insert 
in franchise grants stipulations concerning the maximum 
length of the working day and the minimum wage for em- 
ployees. In some instances other provisions in the interest 
of employees are inserted. The most elaborate provisions 
of this kind with which we are familiar are those made by 
the city of Paris for the benefit of employees in the new 
Paris system of subways or underground roads. As a rule, 
franchise grants by American cities are silent on the mat- 
ter of labor conditions. One of the recent Detroit fran- 
chises is an exception to the general rule in that it stipulates 
that employees shall not be obliged to work more than ten 
hours a day. In some instances, however, States by legis- 
lation have attempted to regulate the hours of employment 
for labor of this kind. Legislative enactments requiring 
the vestibuling of cars in winter and other measures of 
similar kind indicate a growing disposition on the part of 
the public to consider the welfare of this special class of labor. 

' ' Considerations of humane regard for the welfare of those 
who toil have their weight in support of measures of this 
kind, but these measures are justified primarily on quite 
different grounds. Fair treatment of street railway workers 
is demanded by the public primarily as a means of insuring 
efficient and continuous service, free from the interruptions 
that are likely to grow out of controversies over labor con- 
ditions between the employing corporations and dissatisfied 
employees. Recent street railway strikes in other cities 
have emphasized the importance of doing whatever may 
properly be done to guard against the possibility of similar 
interruptions of service here. The Street Railway Com- 
mission is of the opinion that the best way to accomplish 
the object in view would be to insert in all future franchise 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 5I 

grants a provision requiring the company, in case of a dis- 
agreement with its employees that threatens to interfere 
with service, to submit the same to arbitration and to abide 
by the decision of the arbitrator. This would be a system 
of arbitration compulsory upon the company and not upon 
the men, it is true. But in the opinion of the Commission 
this fact does not constitute a valid objection in this case, 
as it would if the attempt were to be made to apply the 
same system to industrial disputes generally. The city has 
no direct dealings with the employees which give it warrant 
to require special things of them. But the company comes 
to the city as a seeker for privileges, and as the city may 
grant or withhold the privilege at will, so it may properly 
grant the privilege subject to conditions, and one of these 
conditions may properly be an agreement upon the part of 
the recipient company to submit disputes with its employees 
to arbitration. It is as competent for the city to exact such 
an agreement from the company, as a condition of the grant, 
as it is for the city to exact compensation, or to require 
the company to carry policemen and firemen free, or to do 
a number of other things which the city does require of 
street railway companies but not of ordinary industrial 
corporations. 

"Now, as to the practical operation of this plan. If the 
companies always stand ready to arbitrate, there is very 
little likelihood of interruption of service as the result 
of street car strikes. Street car strikers cannot win a con- 
test in which they are not supported by public sentiment, 
and public sentiment would be almost unanimous against 
a group of street railway employees who would go on strike 
without first seeking a settlement by arbitration, when 
such a remedy should be open to them. There is every 
likelihood that the street railway employees would be glad 
to make use of arbitration as a means of adjusting griev- 
ances. There is every likelihood, therefore, that a system 
of arbitration compulsory upon the company receiving 
the grant would remove most of the danger of interruption 
of service through strikes or lockouts. 



5 2 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

"Continuous service is the thing above all others which 
the public must have from its transportation agencies. If 
the city itself were managing the street railway system 
employees would be treated in such a manner as to insure 
a service free from interruption on account of strikes. In 
so far as fair treatment of employees may be necessary to 
continuous service, private corporations operating street 
railways under a franchise from the city should be required 
to treat employees as fairly as the city itself would treat 
them were it their direct employer." 

As is pointed out in the report from which I have 
read, the justification for a provision like that recom- 
mended is not primarily regard for the welfare of 
the laborer, though we are coming more and more 
to be solicitous concerning the conditions under which 
such labor is performed. It has long been accepted 
that the public ought to be, as far as possible, an 
ideal employer. This doctrine has been amplified so 
that contractors working for the government are not 
supposed to be permitted to maintain improper labor 
conditions. The time has now come to go further, 
and to say that agencies of the government of every 
kind shall be obliged to treat their workmen fairly. 
And a street railway company or any other public 
service corporation, operating under a franchise grant, 
is an agent of the public for the purpose of rendering 
a public service. Mr. Vreeland, manager of your 
street railway system here, to my mind is not com- 
parable to the manager of a strictly private competi- 
tive business, like a shoe factory, for example. He 
is to be likened, rather, to the head of your police 
or fire department, and the men under Mr. Vreeland, 
in the nature of their employment, are to be likened 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 53 

to those who are directly in the employ of the city as 
policemen or firemen. The street railway and other 
companies of a similar nature are rendering a public 
service, and it is the duty of the public to see that 
the employees engaged in rendering the service for 
them are properly treated. But that is merely the 
sentimental side. When the public is inconvenienced 
and made to suffer loss from the interruption of street 
car service on account of needless strikes, it becomes 
its duty to give attention to the subject for other 
than sentimental reasons. It ought to be no more 
possible to have the street car service of a great city 
interfered with by labor troubles than it would be 
to have the fire department or the water system out 
of action for a similar reason. Experience shows 
that we have many labor troubles in this field. The 
last was in NeAV Orleans, where the city, during the 
past summer was absolutely without street car ser- 
vice for two weeks. Shortly before, St. Louis, San 
Francisco and Providence were having somewhat 
similar experiences. Now I say such a state of 
things should be impossible, or nearly so. It is as 
much the duty of the public authorities, when they 
are entrusting a private corporation with the work 
of rendering a public service, to see that that service 
shall be carried on without interruption from strikes, 
as it is to see that the service shall be excellent in 
other respects. If the company stood ready at all 
times to arbitrate disputes with its employees there 
would be little likelihood of interruption of service 
on account of strikes. Indirectly, the arbitration 
might be made practically binding upon the men 



54 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 



by stipulating that, in consideration of getting the 
benefits of arbitration, the men should agree in ad- 
vance to abide by any award that might be given. 
Such a promise on the part of the men would be of 
great value if only morally enforcible, but it might 
be possible to give it greater force by providing 
for a bond that should be forfeited in case of failure 
to respect an award. Or, better yet, provision 
might be made for the incorporation of the union, 
so that the men would be legally responsible for 
failure to observe any agreements they might en- 
ter into. 

Chicago has recently had experience with arbitra- 
tion, as applied to street railway labor troubles. The 
Street railway labor situation has had threatening 
aspects for some months. Until recently, the street 
railway men of Chicago were without organization, 
the policy of the companies having been not to 
permit the men in their employ to affiliate with 
unions. A few months ago organizers began work 
among the street railway employees and met with 
success. The companies at first tried to disrupt the 
organization by discharging the leaders, but the 
movement was too strong to be checked. In the face 
of a threatened strike the companies withdrew their 
opposition to the formation of unions. Then came 
demands for wage increases, the men asking a raise 
from 21 to 28 cents an hour for conductors and 
motormen on electric cars. The City Railway Com- 
pany met this demand with an offer of 24 cents an 
hour. The men refused the offer, and resort was 
had to arbitration, with the result that 24 cents an 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 



55 



hour was fixed as the rate to be paid, all three arbi- 
trators concurring in the award. The new wage 
scale, so far as the City Railway Company is con- 
cerned, went into effect August ist last. The Union 
Traction Company met the request for more wages 
with an offer of a very small increase, together with 
a proposition for complete recognition of the union. 
This latter proposition was so attractive to the leaders 
that they urged acceptance, but the men on a direct 
vote rejected the offer. The entire matter then went 
to arbitration. The union selected as its arbitrator 
Clarence S. Darrow, and the company chose Wallace 
Heckman, both prominent Chicago attorneys. For 
the third arbitrator there was agreement upon W. J. 
Onahan, president of the Home Savings Bank, for- 
merly controller of the city of Chicago, and one of 
the prominent Catholic laymen in the country. 
These arbitrators decided to sit like a court, and have 
each side present its case by attorneys. The sessions 
were not open to the public, but the gist of the pro- 
ceedings was given to the press as the hearings pro- 
gressed. The company was represented by its presi- 
dent, John M. Roach, and by its general counsel, 
W. W. Gurley. The union was represented by J. H. 
Larkin, its president, and by Edgar L. Masters, an 
attorney engaged for the purpose. 

The arbitrators decided that the wages should be 
24 cents an hour, a decision that was satisfactory to 
both sides. The process of arbitration, instead of 
promoting bitterness between the parties, seems ac- 
tually to have fostered good feeling. The contro- 
versy was settled without loss of either wages or 



5 6 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

profits from idleness, and more important still, with- 
out the injury to the community that flows from in- 
terruption to street car service. The temper of the 
men in Chicago at the outset was radical and they 
seemed disposed to strike anyway, in the confidence 
that a strike was bound to be successful and to bring 
greater victories than could be expected from arbi- 
tration. It is fair to say that a street car strike of 
serious dimensions in Chicago was prevented only be- 
cause the companies stood ready to arbitrate, and in 
the face of that position on the part of the companies 
the men did not dare to strike, knowing that if they 
did they would forfeit their standing with the public. 
But, it may be well to ask, How comes it that the 
street railway companies in Chicago at this critical 
time are so willing to arbitrate, when those same com- 
panies at other times have been, and street railway 
companies in other cities usually are, so loth to ac- 
cept arbitration? The answer must be that the con- 
ditions in Chicago just now are such that arbitration 
is practically compulsory upon the companies. The 
most important franchise grants of these companies 
expire on July 30 of next year, less than a twelve- 
month hence. The question of the renewal of those 
grants is the all-important issue of local politics in 
Chicago. At a time when the companies must go to 
the city government asking for favors, they simply 
dare not offend public sentiment by inviting a need- 
less street car strike. When the franchise renewal 
question shall be settled and out of the way, the 
Chicago companies, perhaps, may not be so favorable 
to the policy' of arbitration, unless they be required 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 57 

by the terms of their grant to submit to arbitration 
in the future. 

In this connection, it may be well to point out that 
the National Civic Federation was helpful in prevent- 
ing trouble in Chicago, as a member of the execu- 
tive committee of the Federation, Mr. Franklin Mac- 
Veagh, was besought to use his good offices in the in- 
terest of peace, and it is believed that his conferences 
with officials of the Chicago Union Traction Company 
had much to do with leading that company to favor 
arbitration. 

In case we are not willing to employ arbitration, it 
seems to me that we should at least do something 
akin to that to prevent disputes of this kind. Mo^t 
of the street car strikes come from questions of 
wages, hours, and the right to organize, and if it seems 
too radical, too new, to insist upon requirements for 
arbitration as a feature of the franchise grant, why 
at least here should be inserted a clause for a minimum 
wage and maximum hours, and a provision making 
it a finable offense for the company to discharge a 
man for membership in a union. 



The Chairman: The next speaker is Mr. Charles 
Francis Adams, of Boston, who will speak on 

INVESTIGATION AND PUBLICITY AS OP- 
POSED TO "COMPULSORY ARBITRATION." 

MORE than a year ago, during the great steel 
strike of August, 1901, I prepared a com- 
munication setting forth certain Massachusetts experi- 
ences, during pre vious similar troubles, as being worthy 
of consideration. They suggested a possible solution, 
practical in character, of what are known as "labor 
troubles" — the conflicts between employer and em- 
ployee which result in strikes and tie-ups. Printed in 
various papers, this communication caused at the time 
some discussion. More recently I have been applying 
the experience then set forth, and the principles advo- 
cated, to the existing and more serious complications 
which have since arisen. I have also been in com- 
munication with Col. Carroll D. Wright and Mr. 
Henry Cabot Lodge, one of the senators from Mas- 
sachusetts, discussing the facts and theories involved, 
with a view to what' may be considered an outcome 
based on the systems, political and constitutional, 
as well as the labor conditions, and the social and 
industrial organizations, existing to-day in the 
United States. With a view to ultimate satisfactory 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 59 

results, the effort has been to recognize facts, and to 
make action conform to them. My purpose to-day 
is to set forth as briefly as possible the conclusions 
so far reached. 

In the communication referred to, I first called at- 
tention to the nearest approach to a practical solution 
of the labor problem in accordance with American 
conditions, ideals, and traditions, which has, so far as 
I know, yet been devised and put in use. And, in 
making this statement, I lay emphasis upon the word 
"American"; for I hold it to be quite useless to take 
a system, whether purely ideal and theoretical, or 
even, in other countries, practicable, and apply it gen- 
erally. The first essential to success in constructing 
or developing any system of laws is that such system 
shall be in conformity with the conditions, ideals and 
traditions of the community for which it is designed. 
To ignore them, much more to run counter to them, is 
to court failure at the outset. As Alexander Hamil- 
ton said more than a century ago of the United 
States Constitution — "A government must be fitted 
to a nation much as a coat to the individual; and 
consequently what may be good at Philadelphia, 
may be bad at Paris, and ridiculed at Petersburgh." 
In like manner, a system of legislation designed to 
regulate the relations of labor and capital may 
work well in Australia, but it by no means follows 
that a similar system would work well in Great 
Britain or Germany; and a system which might be 
practical, if not reasonably satisfactory, in Bohemia 
and Austro- Hungary, would almost surely prove 
quite otherwise in the United States. 



60 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

This I am well aware is a commonplace, almost, 
indeed, a platitude. And yet it is necessary to pre- 
mise it carefully; for, just so long as men are what 
they now are, unusual exigencies will, under any 
system of government, from time to time arise; but, 
when such do arise, it is always very noticeable how 
the air is at once filled with suggestions of remedy, 
either quite untried or borrowed from other lands. 
And such are recommended for immediate adoption, 
wholly regardless of our constitution, laws, political 
organization or the spirit of our industrial develop- 
ment. This is empirical; and, in these matters, 
empiracy is of all things to be shunned. 

I come now to the experience I have referred to. 
There is, in the State of Massachusetts, and has been 
for over thirty years, a Board of Railroad Com- 
missioners. In the history of that Board there was 
one important, but now quite forgotten, incident, 
from which a highly suggestive lesson may be drawn. 
It occurred twenty-five years ago. The Massachu- 
setts Railroad Commission was or^cinized on the 
theory, that, in adjusting matters of difference be- 
tween the community and its railroad corporations, 
the vesting of arbitrary power in such a tribunal was 
a hindrance to it rather than a help; for the reason 
that in America force is in the long run less effective 
in producing results than investigation, and subse- 
quent well-considered recommendations based 
thereon. The appeal was in every case to be made 
to reason and public opinion, and not to the sheriff or 
the soldier. Accordingly, in the event of differ- 
ences between the corporations and their employees, 



• INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 61 

even those resulting in strikes and tie-ups, the 
Commissioners had no executive power. It was 
their duty, in a general way, to take official cogni- 
zance of the fact when the community was sustain- 
ing an injury or an inconvenience, and to investigate 
the causes thereof. Having so investigated, the 
Board was empowered to locate the responsibility for 
the injury and inconvenience, and to make its recom- 
mendations accordingly; but those recommendations 
had merely a moral force. They could be addressed 
to the parties concerned, and to public opinion, only. 
Their effect, greater or less, was measured by the jus- 
tice and good sense impressed upon them. The Com- 
missioners, moreover, disavowed any wish to be 
clothed with larger powers. They feared the pos- 
session of such powers. They were persuaded they 
could in the end accomplish more satisfactory results 
without them. 

This theory was soon put to a test. At four 
o'clock in the afternoon of the twelfth of February, 
1877, all the locomotive engineers and firemen in the 
employ of the Boston & Maine Railroad Company 
stopped work in a body, abandoning their trains. 
The move was not altogether unexpected, but the 
operation of the road was seriously interfered with. 
The Commissioners did not at first intervene, neither 
party calling upon them. Indeed, both parties were 
unwilling so to do, for each was apprehensive, appar- 
ently, of adverse action. During several days, ac- 
cordingly, the Commissioners preserved an attitude 
of silent observation. After the lapse of a reasonable 
period, however, the Board concluded that it was 



1 



62 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

plainly time to recognize the fact that the public was 
suffering serious inconvenience ; for then the Boston & 
Maine Railroad was, as it still is, one of the prin- 
cipal arteries of eastern New England. The presi- 
dent and directors of the company and the employ- 
ees of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers were 
accordingly notified that the Board proposed to take 
a hand in the business. This it proceeded to do. An 
immediate investigation was notified. Both parties 
appeared — for, without confessing itself in the 
wrong, neither party could well help so doing — and 
professed a perfect willingness to submit their cases. 
No suggestion of a readiness to abide by any decision 
that might be given thereon was either asked for or 
given; but the Board proceeded to hear witnesses 
and to elicit the facts. The inquiry was continued 
through three days, and, on the twenty-first of Feb- 
ruary, the report of the Board was made public, 
appearing in full in all the newspapers of that date. 
In it the Commissioners, after carefully and judicially 
sifting out the essential facts from the evidence sub- 
mitted, placed the responsibility for the trouble where 
the weight of evidence showed it belonged, and 
thereupon proceeded to make such recommendations 
as in its judgment the exigencies called for. The 
effect was immediate. An authentic record was 
before the community, and public opinion, crystal- 
lizing, made itself decisively felt. 

It is not necessary to enter further into the history 
and merits — the rights and the wrongs — of that 
particular struggle. My object is merely to call 
attention to what was then done, and done success- 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 63 

fully, as constituting the nearest practical approach 
consistent with our American political and social 
system to what is known as "Compulsory Arbitra- 
tion." It was compulsory inquiry only, and an 
appeal thereon to the reason and sense of right of all 
concerned. Reliance was placed in an enlightened 
sense of right of all concerned, and an informed 
public opinion. 

Here then is a system. Under it a public tribunal 
is provided ; that tribunal takes official cognizance of 
what is notorious; and, when either the peace or the 
business of the community sustains prejudice or is 
gravely jeopardized, it becomes its duty to intervene. 
It intervenes only for the purpose of obtaining the 
information necessary to enable it to form a clear, ju- 
dicial opinion. It then sets the facts before the com- 
munity, and makes its recommendation. It locates 
responsibility. There it stops; for it can compel 
obedience on neither side. 

Now, let us apply this proposed system to the con- 
ditions which, for the last eight months, have existed 
in the anthracite coal regions. Let us assume that 
provision by law existed under which the Executive, 
either national or state, was empowered and directed 
to appoint such a board pro hac vice, calling it into ex- 
istence to meet a sudden emergency. The chances, I 
submit, are at least nine out of ten that, if such a 
machinery had existed, and had been judiciously em- 
ployed either by the Governor of Pennsylvania or the 
President of the United States, a practical solution of 
the difficulty which for the last eight months has 
harassed the country would have been reached. The 



64 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE 

community began to sustain grave prejudice at an 
early stage of the troubles. The resulting injury be- 
came more and more flagrant as the weeks passed by. 
The continuance of such conditions not only was in- 
jurious to private interests, but, as we all know, the 
public peace itself was involved. Under such circum- 
stances, experience shows that neither party will, for 
obvious reasons, voluntarily call upon a board or 
commission to intervene; for such action is tanta- 
mount to a confession of weakness. Both will look 
at it askance. It must rest, therefore, in the discre- 
tion of the Executive to decide whether a case has 
arisen which calls for public initiative; the public 
being a third party to the controversy. That it is 
such, it is impossible to deny. It therefore has 
rights and interests — a standing in court. It having 
been decided, in the exercise of a sound discretion, 
that circumstances call for this third party to act, 
the Executive gives notice to all concerned that, at 
the proper time and place, it is proposed to enter upon 
an investigation. If both parties see fit then to ap- 
pear and submit evidence as to the facts, that evi- 
dence becomes public property. If one party ap- 
pears, the other absents itself at its peril. Should 
neither party appear, producing authentic docu- 
ments and putting in a case, the Board would pro- 
ceed to enlighten itself through all other accessible 
means. In behalf of the third party to the con- 
troversy, of which it is the representative, it should 
be empowered to summon witnesses, and to enforce 
the production of documents. Having completed 
its investigation, it would then make its recommen- 



INDUSTRIAL COXEEREXCE. 65 

dations definitely, and, if it knows its business, con- 
cisely, locating responsibility where the evidence 
shows it belongs. A practical solution of the trouble, 
such as would naturally commend itself to the judg- 
ment of an unprejudiced tribunal, would be pointed 
out. A solution of that sort always exists. This 
report would be transmitted to the appointing 
power, whether President or Governor. By him 
it would then be communicated to the parties in 
interest, including the public; and, in due time, sub- 
mitted to Congress, or the State Legislature, always 
with such enforcing or qualifying recommendations 
as might commend themselves to executive judg- 
ment. The report so made would carry with the 
public and with the parties concerned exactly that 
degree of weight its judicial character and reasoning 
might impart to it — that, and nothing more. It 
could not be enforced by any governmental process. 
There would be neither sheriff, nor posse comitatus, 
nor military force, behind it. But, if well reasoned 
and impartial, it would bring to bear the moral 
weight of an enlightened public opinion. 

Did such a machinery as this exist, simple and ad- 
visory only, it is not unsafe to say that it would prove 
adequate for the settlement of nine complications out 
of ten. In the case of the anthracite strike, for in- 
stance, if the Commission since appointed by Presi- 
dent Roosevelt could have been appointed four 
months sooner, while the conflict was in the earlier 
stage of development, its report would have afforded 
to one or both parties concerned an opportunity to 
withdraw creditably from a position which after- 



66 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

wards, for at least one of them, became false and 
consequently perilous. What the country has needed 
is light — the possession, if not of undisputed facts, at 
least of an authentic statement of the facts in dispute. 
Had these been spread upon the record and submitted 
for public consideration, it could hardly be other- 
wise than that recommendations firm, judicious and 
reasonable, based theron, would have sufficed to 
remove from the path the impediment of false pride — 
that stumbling block in the case of nine strikes out 
of ten. An opportunity of gracefully receding would 
have been offered to one or both parties concerned. 
Should either party have insisted, in the face of 
light and reason, the responsibility for obstinate in- 
sistence would have been upon its head. In the 
United States public opinion has in such cases a very 
summary, as well as effective, way of enforcing its 
own process. An excellent and sufficient example of 
this was furnished in the sudden change of front on 
the part of one of the parties to the present anthracite 
complication, executed in the face of a rapidly rising 
popular sentiment. Persistence was felt to involve 
too much risk. It would be so in the great mass of 
these cases. They are pre vent ible. But what is wanted 
for their prevention is not force, but light and guidance. 
This generally acknowledged fact to the contraary 
notwithstanding, it is singular to note, when any con- 
troversy arises, how such a method of settlement as 
that here proposed is at once set aside as being inad- 
equate and unworthy of consideration, because be- 
hind it there is no constable's club or soldier's bayonet. 
In fact, however, the word " compulsion has an 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 67 

unpleasant sound to Americans. In theory only is 
the thing itself popular. With us the final appeal 
must always be to reason; and public opinion en- 
forces the edict of that appeal. In every field of 
legislation this has been again and again illustrated; 
and yet the appeal to reason, as now here made, 
is almost as invariably as contemptuously dismissed 
from consideration, on the ground that there is 
behind it no force to compel obedience. 

It is this tendency to compulsion against which, 
I submit, it is the especial function of the Civic 
Federation to protest. We should lay emphasis on 
the fact that our appeal is to reason, and not to force. 
The difficulty with the Federation is not want of 
power, but want of official standing. It is a volunteer. 
At no time, for instance, during the last six months 
could it enter the field as representing the Executive 
of either State or Nation; and had it entered the 
field on its own initiative only it would have been in 
imminent danger of incurring the contempt not only 
of both parties to the controversy, but of the public 
itself. It has, therefore, been compelled to inaction, 
— a purely waiting attitude. This fact in itself dis- 
closes a want. A piece of machinery is lacking. 

But it is argued that such boards already exist, and 
the results of their efforts have not proved satisfac- 
tory. This assumption I deny, and on broad ground. 
When such large interests are involved as, for in- 
stance, in the strike in the anthracite coal region, rep- 
resented by men of capacity on each side, to deal ef- 
fectively it would be necessary for the community to 
have the power of availing itself of the services of the 



68 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

very best men,, and those of the highest character and 
authority at its command. If it speaks at all, it 
should speak adequately. If in June it had been the 
duty, as well as within the power, of the President, 
or of the Governor of Pennsylvania, recognizing that 
the public interests and convenience were involved, 
and that lasting injuries might be entailed, to take 
cognizance of the situation in the anthracite region, 
it should, under the system proposed, have been the 
duty of either Executive to call upon the very strong- 
est men in the community — those of highest char- 
acter and most intimately acquainted with every 
condition involved. No man in the country so 
called upon could have refused to serve; yet such 
men will not accept, nor should they be expected to 
accept, merely salaried positions, permanent in char- 
acter, on a board of subordinate importance. 

The machinery now suggested should, moreover, 
be reserved, and brought into action only in special 
exigencies. It is not designed, nor is it adapted, to 
everyday use. In that field the existing boards are 
doing good service, and doing it sufficiently well; but, 
for obvious reasons, they are not equal to the ex- 
ceptional occasions. They occupy the positions of 
municipal courts; but, where grave problems of con- 
stitutional law present themselves, such are not re- 
ferred to the police magistrates for decision, nor would 
the decision of those magistrates, if rendered upon 
them, carry the necessary weight. Exceptional 
cases can only be dealt with exceptionally. For- 
tunately they do not arise often. In the field of 
labor complcations, for instance, two only have oc- 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 69 

curred during the last eighteen months. But they 
unquestionably will recur periodically in the future, 
and, when they come, their presence is unmis- 
takable. It would then be for the executive, state 
or national, to take cognizance of what is apparent, 
and to set in motion the special machinery designed 
and held in reserve for that exigency. 

It is equally futile to say that the parties concerned , 
unconsenting thereto, might decline to appear before 
such a Commission. In such case the Commission 
would simply proceed with its inquiry in the absence 
of such party or parties. With the power of summon- 
ing witnesses and compelling the production of books, 
all necessary information would be accessible to it. 
But the parties could not refuse to appear. They 
would not dare to refuse. 

Finally, the report of such a tribunal, addressed to 
its appointing power, would be like the decision of a 
high court of justice on an abstract point of consti- 
tutional law of the first magnitude. Read by every 
one, if the decision were weak, or bore in it signs of 
prejudice or interest, it would, falling dead, fail to in- 
fluence public opinion. Equally, if handled with a 
firm and intelligent grasp, it would carry conviction. 
That conviction, when so carried, is in this country 
irresistible. It in the end makes opposition con- 
fessedly factious. 

The trouble with us is that we are always prating 
of the force of public opinion ; but, when the exigency 
arises, we evince no confidence whatever in it. Like 
a parcel of children, we are apt to cry out for the 
master to come in and enforce instant obedience with 



7° 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 



the rod. I submit that permanent results with us in 
America are not reached in that way. Let us in this 
matter have the courage of our convictions. 

I have already expressed my belief that, if such a 
system as 1 have here suggested could be brought 
into being through a very simple act of legislation, 
which, open to no constitutional or other objection, 
would be in entire accord with our industrial system, 
our traditions and the American ideals, it would set- 
the nine matters of controversy which arise out of ten. 
I now further submit it is highly desirable from every 
point of view that the tenth case of controversy should 
not be settled, but should be fought out. In the 
practical affairs of life, as we all know, it is necessary 
now and then that the fight should be to a finish. Our 
own civil war was a case in point. No arbitration 
ever could have settled that; no appeal to reason 
would have produced conviction. The issue had to 
be fought to the bitter end. That it was so fought 
we are now all grateful, though, at the time, the 
demand was loud and incessant for some comprom- 
ise — any close to the "useless, the suicidal strife." 
This exceptional case, however, by no means brought 
the principles of arbitration and reasonable adjust- 
ment into discredit, and consequent disuse. On 
the contrary, they have grown stronger ever since, 
securing more and more hold on public opinion. 
What is necessary, in my judgment, is to organize 
that public opinion, and, when organized and made 
effective, to rely on it to produce all desirable results 
in the average case. But it can only be organized 
by bringing it to bear through the medium of capable 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 7I 

men, thoroughly informed upon the special matter 
under discussion, and competent to express courag- 
eous opinions clearly. The tribunal doing this should 
then dissolve. It should not continue in existence, 
the target for criticism, partisan discussion and pop- 
ular odium. Should a new case arise, another trib- 
unal of a similar character would at the proper time 
be called into being to deal with it in its turn. 

Sound and fruitful legislation cannot, moreover, 
be improvised. It is idle to talk in language as empty 
as it is grandiose, of "curbing," or regulating by any 
patented method, potentates and powers of such 
large, and yet vague, character as those that labor 
and capital are now continually bringing into the 
field. A governmental regulation which shall deal 
satisfactorily with them must rest upon a broad and 
well-considered basis of experience. It would be the 
natural outcome of a series of reports of tribunals 
such as that suggested. It is equally futile to sup- 
pose that this labor contest in which we have been 
engaged, and of which we have so long experienced 
the inconvenient results, is going to be settled in a 
day or an hour, or next year, or within the next ten 
years. It will continue with us during the remainder 
of our lives, and with our children after us; but we 
will slowly and tentatively approximate to satis- 
factory results. Under these circumstances if a 
solution, represented by a proper legislative and 
administrative machinery, is ever to be evolved, it 
must be evolved from a series of wearisome investi- 
gations and reports thereon, no less judicial and well 
considered than that body of great opinions from 



72 



INDUSTRIAL COXFEREXCE. 



which the present constitution of the United States 
has been slowly built up and rounded out. 

In the case of the national Executive, some ques 
tion has been raised as to its functions and powers, in 
view of our constitutional system and the reserved 
rights of the States. I cannot, however, see that this 
enters into the present question, or what is now pro- 
posed. It is certainly the duty of the President to 
inform himself upon all questions relating to the 
carriage of the mails, and to the movement of com- 
merce, whether foreign or interstate. Questions of 
revenue are involved ; questions affecting the trans- 
portation of material, men and supplies may be in- 
volved. To inform himself he should be empowered 
to appoint agencies competent to investigate and 
report thereon. It is not now proposed to clothe 
him with any power in these exigencies, except that 
of receiving a report, forwarding it to the parties in- 
volved, together with his own recommendations, 
and then submitting the same to Congress. To give 
the President power to intervene by any executive 
act of a compulsory character would, in my opinion, 
jeopardize at the beginning every desirable ultimate 
result of the experiment proposed. Congressional 
action is always in reserve; but even Congressional 
action ought to be intelligent, and to be intelli- 
gent it should be well considered — based on a con- 
siderable body of facts, judicially ascertained. The 
judicial ascertainment of facts and the study of 
principles involved therein, is, therefore, what the 
occasion immediately demands. Sound remedial 
legislation will in due time result therefrom. But 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 



73 



at present the chances are enormous that crude and 
precipate effort at a compulsory betterment of exist- 
ing conditions would only make what is already quite 
sufficiently bad, distinctly worse. 

As the result of my conversations with Colonel 
Wright and Mr. Lodge, I have undertaken to draw 
up a single act, in few sections, based upon the fore- 
going principles and looking to the results indicated. 
It could be passed, mutatis mutandis, by any State- 
Legislature or by Congress. It would contravene 
no constitutional provision or private right, but 
simply secure to the community — the third party 
involved in every controversy of this sort of any 
magnitude — the right to get at the facts in dispute ; 
and, after so doing, to bring to bear an intelligent 
pressure of its own, looking to a reasonable solution 
of troubles sure, hereafter, to arise. Such- an act has 
accordingly been prepared, and is subjoined hereto. 



AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR THE INVESTIGA- 
TION OF CONTROVERSIES AFFECTING IN- 
TERSTATE COMMERCE AND FOR OTHER 
PURPOSES. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa- 
tives of the United States of America in Congress 
assembled: 

Section i. That whenever within any State or 
States, Territory or Territories of the United States 
a controversy concerning wages, hours of labor or 
conditions of employment shall arise between an 
employer being an individual, partnership, associa- 
tion, corporation or other combination, and the 
employees or association or combination of em- 
ployees of such employer, by reason of which con- 
troversy the transportation of the United States 
mails, the operations, civil or military, of the Gov- 
ernment of the United States, or the free and regular 
movement of commerce among the several States 
and with foreign nations is in the judgment of the 
President interrupted or directly affected, or threat- 
ened with being so interrupted or directly affected, 
the President shall, in his discretion, inquire into the 
same and investigate the causes thereof. 

Section 2. To this end the President may appoint 

74 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 



75 



a special commission, not exceeding seven in number, 
of persons in his judgment specially qualified to 
conduct such an investigation. 

Section 3. Such Commission shall organize with 
all convenient despatch, and upon giving reasonable 
notice to the parties to the controversy, either at the 
seat of disturbance or elsewhere, as it may deem most 
expedient, shall proceed to investigate the causes of 
such controversy and the remedy therefor. 

Section 4. The parties to the controversy shall be 
entitled to be present in person or by counsel through- 
out the continuation of the investigation, and shall 
be entitled to a hearing thereon, subject always to 
such rules of procedure as the Commission may 
adopt; but nothing in this section contained shall 
be construed as entitling said parties to be present 
during the proceedings of the Commission prior to 
or after the completion of their investigation. 

Section 5. For the purpose of this act, the Com- 
mission, or any one Commissioner, shall have power 
to administer oaths and affirmations, to sign sub- 
poenas, to require the testimony of witnesses either 
by attendance in person or by deposition, and to 
require the production of such books, papers, con- 
tracts, agreements and documents as may be deemed 
material to a just determination of the matters 
under investigation ; and to this end the Commission 
may invoke the aid of the courts of the United States 
to compel witnesses to attend and testify and to pro- 
duce such books, papers, contracts, agreements, and 
documents; and for the purposes of this section it 
shall be vested with the same powers, to the same 



76 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCF 

extent and under the same conditions and penalties, 
as are vested in the Interstate Commerce Commis- 
sion by the Act to regulate commerce, approved 
February 4th, 1887, and the Acts amendatory and 
in addition thereto; and it shall be the duty of the 
said courts of the United States to render said Com- 
mission the same aid to the same extent and under 
the same conditions as is provided by said Acts in 
aid of said Interstate Commerce Commission; and 
witnesses examined as aforesaid shall be subject to 
the same duties and entitled to the same immunities 
as is provided in said Acts. 

Section 6. For the purposes of this Act the Com- 
mission may, whenever it deems it expedient, enter 
and inspect any public institution, factory, workshop, 
or mine, and may employ one or more competent 
experts to examine accounts, books or official re- 
ports, or to examine and report on any matter 
material to the investigation, in which such exam- 
ination and report may be deemed of substantial 
assistance. 

Section 7. Having made such investigation and 
elicited such information of all the facts connected 
with the controversy into which they were ap- 
pointed to inquire, the Commission shall formulate 
its report thereon, setting forth the causes of the same, 
locating so far as may be the responsibility therefor, 
and making such specific recommendations as shall 
in its judgment put an end to such controversy or 
disturbance and prevent a recurrence thereof, sur- 
gesting any legislation which the case may seem to 
require. 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 77 

Section 8. The report of such commission shall 
forthwith be transmitted to the President and by 
him communicated, together with such portions of 
the evidence elicited and any comments or further 
recommendation he may see fit to make, to the 
principal parties responsible for the controversy or 
involved therein; and the papers shall be duly 
transmitted to Congress for its information and 
action. 

Section 9. The Commission may, from time to 
time, make or amend such general rules or orders as 
may be deemed appropriate for the order and regu- 
lation of its investigations and proceedings, includ- 
ing forms of notices and the service thereof, which 
shall conform as nearly as may be to those in use in 
the courts of the United States. 

Section 10. The President is authorized and em- 
powered to fix a reasonable compensation to be paid 
to the members of the Commission from the Treasury 
at such times and in such manner as he shall direct. 
The Commission shall have authority to employ and 
fix the compensation of such employees as it may 
find necessary to the proper performance of its duties, 
subject to the approval of the Secretary of the In- 
terior. 

The Commission shall be furnished by the Secre- 
tary of the Interior with suitable offices and all 
necessary office supplies. Witnesses summoned be- 
fore the Commission shall be paid the same fees and 
mileage that are paid to witnesses in the courts of 
the United States. 

All of the expenses of the Commission, including 



78 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

all necessary expenses for transportation incurred 
by the Commissioners or by their employees under 
their orders, in making any investigation under this 
Act, shall be allowed and paid, on the presentation 
of itemized vouchers therefor approved by the Chair- 
man of the Commission and the Secretary of the In- 
terior. 

Section ii. No Commission appointed under this 
Act shall continue for a period of over three months 
from the date of the appointment thereof, unless at 
any time before the expiration of such period the 
President shall otherwise order. 

The Chairman: As this question of arbitration is 
now up, I will call upon Mr. John McMackin, State 
Labor Commissioner of New York State. 

Mr. McMackin: Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen — 
During the last eighteen months, through the con- 
solidation of the different labor bureaus of this State 
into the Department of Labor, it has been my for- 
tune to have had some little connection with the 
strikes in New York State. I found that one of the 
greatest obstacles to the settlement of strikes was 
the refusal of employers either to recognize the right 
of the employees to organize, or to treat with them 
as an organization. This is particularly so in the 
small towns of New York State, and it is so with 
newly organized railroads, such as our trolley lines. 
It applies in some cases to firms conducted by what 
are termed trusts. I have in mind the case of a firm 
or so-called trust, where the men were working eleven 
hours a day. They went out on strike for a reduc- 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 



79 



tion of hours, and we took every means possible to 
bring about an understanding, when finally the com- 
pany informed us that if the men did not return to 
work the company would simply close the factory 
and transfer the work to another place, which would 
have practically meant the ruin of that locality. 
The result was that these people had to submit and 
go to work. I had another case in one of the southern 
tier counties, connected in the same way as the other 
cases that I have referred to, and they, for some reason t 
refused to treat with their men and threatened to 
shut down the business. 

The influence of this Federation has been of im- 
mense advantage and benefit to officers of the State 
whose business it is to bring about amicable relations, 
because it has influenced employer and employee to 
think of their relations to one another. I may cite 
a case to you to show how a community suffers by 
the misunderstanding and obstinacy of the officers of 
a corporation. In three counties of this State there 
was a protracted strike on a trolley railroad, tying 
up all means of communication for four or five 
months. We tried to bring about an understanding 
with the president of the company and its counsel, 
but they said, "No; we don't intend to treat with 
these people. We intend to wipe out whatever there 
is of a union here." "Well," said I, "my friends," 
you may wipe it out, but what comes after?" The 
result was the sheriffs of these three counties ordered 
out the militia. The road ran about eighty miles 
through a wild country that it was impossible to pro- 
tect. It has cost those three counties some $48,000 



80 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

for the maintenance of the militia. And, after all 
this trouble, the company finally settled the matter. 
The original cause of the trouble was the discharge of 
a man whom the company had accused of running 
a freight car at such a rapid pace as to collide with 
a passenger car, though no one was hurt thereby. 
After the strike was over, the company investigated 
the discharge of this man, and last week reinstated 
him, admitting that there was no real cause for all 
that strike. Now you can see the difference. Work- 
ingmen are abused and charged with being senseless, 
reckless, etc., but here men representing large in- 
terests jeopardized not alone their own interests, but 
put the people to all this trouble and unnecessary 
expense. 

Now, I have listened with a great deal of pleasure 
and delight to the very able and instructive paper 
of Mr. Adams, and I must say that I feel much as Mr. 
Adams does. But I would call to Mr. Adams' at- 
tention the fact that he is treating of conditions prev- 
alent twenty-five years ago. At that time there were 
not the gigantic industrial corporations and com- 
binations that exist to-day. What was possible 
twenty-five years ago is no longer possible under our 
industrial system. As to the possibility of obtaining 
data from corporations, let me tell Mr. Adams that 
it is well-nigh impossible. Colonel Wright could in- 
form him that during the taking of the census of 
1890 there were several of the largest industrial cor- 
porations of the country that absolutely refused to 
answer the questions of the Federal Government for 
use in the census. When Colonel Wright took the 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 8t 

work in hand he found that even under the law he 
could not compel them to answer these questions. 
And that is the reason why to-day some drastic 
means are required whereby the public may obtain 
that general knowledge so essential if we are not to 
fail even in our industrial movements for peace. 
Before we reach the employee and his dealings with 
the employer, how are we to arrive at an understand- 
ing as to what is the income, what are the earnings 
of a corporation, unless we know the actual capital 
invested and the income and earnings on that capi- 
tal? Our Board of Mediation and Arbitration in 
New York State is clothed with all the power that 
Mr. Adams proposes, and yet, I regret to say, that 
power has been found inadequate. Some twelve 
years ago, I think, there was an extensive strike on 
the New York Central Railroad. The Board at that 
time was composed of one Democrat, one Republi- 
can, and one member supposed to represent organized 
labor. The Board was clothed with absolute power 
to investigate the earnings of the Central Railroad 
and to report on it to the public. As a matter of 
fact, that Board voted not to investigate the Central 
Railroad, not to call for its papers, and thus the pub- 
lic were left in the dark as to the real merits of the 
strike. But I am glad to see that Mr. Adams wisely 
dispenses with permanent boards of arbitration under 
governmental control. It is the wisest thing pos- 
sible if we were to adopt that course in settling dis- 
putes, that as the crisis arises so should the commis- 
sion be appointed to deal with the specific case. But, 
preceding that, there must be some method whereby 



82 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

the public may understand the status of a cor- 
poration. All the troubles affecting the industrial 
world to-day arise principally from newly organized 
men. There is very little trouble, if you take the 
country over, in the skilled trades that are well or- 
ganized. When gigantic strikes occur, such as oc- 
curred in the anthracite coal district and such as 
occur on railroads, it is a great question, a question 
not even clear in my own mind, whether the interests 
of the people are not paramount in such crises; and 
whether it is not their right to say to two contending 
parties, "You submit this matter to us"; because it 
is the public that is concerned; it is their business 
that is stopped. What reason, in God's name, when 
you reason it out, had these men in Pennsylvania in 
denying the right to arbitrate, to stop the supply of 
what God placed there in the earth for His children, 
simply because they would not agree to arbitrate the 
simple question of wages or hours ? Morally, they had 
no right, and, if a thing is not morally right, it cannot 
be right at all. When workingmen read statements 
like those credited to Mr. Baer, they are liable to 
make a great deal of trouble. When Mr. Baer 
singles himself out as placed there by Divine Provi- 
dence to dispense God's bounties, don't you know 
that it starts a great many men thinking and wonder- 
ing if this is all a fallacy — this brotherhood of man 
and this Fatherhood of God — and that that thinking 
bodes no good to what are regarded as vested rights ? 
It is because men do not comprehend their true re- 
lations, their interdependence in this world, that all 
these troubles, arise. We feel them more here in 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 83 

America because we progress faster. We shall have 
to settle them in advance of any other nation because 
of our advance and our progress. And it is only by 
the method wisely taken by the leaders of capital 
and by the leaders of the large labor organizations in 
this Civic Federation that we shall be able to arrive 
at any satisfactory settlements of this industrial 
problem. Mr. Adams seems to think that this 
struggle will be interminable — will go on forever. 
I can scarcely think so. Out of these discussions, 
this fraternization of employer and employee, and 
the ever-increasing desire for justice among men some 
means will be found in the not far distant future by 
which man will reap the natural result of his labor. 
It may be by profit-sharing or by a system of indus- 
trial co-operation. I think Mr. Abram S. Hewitt ad- 
vanced this solution of the trust problem a couple 
of years ago, and there are very few public men who 
have given such intelligent attention to economic 
questions as Mr. Hewitt has. But, for the present, 
the great essential thing is to preserve industrial 
peace in this country until we can arrive at a satis- 
factory solution of the whole problem. I heartily 
agree with Mr. Adams' proposition, with the simple 
proviso that it woi^d be useless unless Congress and 
the several States took some definite action com- 
pelling publicity of the actual business of industrial 
corporations. 

The Chairman: In closing, I am going to ask to 
hear from one of our guests from the other side, and 
call on Mr. Barnes, who -is connected with the Society 
of Engineers of England. 



84 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

Mr. G. N. Barnes: Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen 
— Your somewhat unexpected call on me to address 
a few observations to this distinguished audience 
finds me unprepared to do so as effectively 
as I could wish. And moreover, I remember Mr. 
Mosely's opening observations this morning, with 
which I perfectly agree, that the appropriate attitude 
for us here upon this occasion is one of modest listen- 
ing to what goes on. We are here, sir, not to identify 
ourselves with this Civic Federation, but rather to 
ascertain the facts in regard to the Civic Federation 
and ascertain the facts generally in regard to your 
social and industrial life in this country, with a view 
to reporting on the other side, and with a view, fur- 
thermore, of adopting on the other side what seems 
to us would be of mutual advantage to both em- 
ployer and employed. With your permission, I de- 
sire to cover in the few minutes that I shall occupy 
your time somewhat of the ground that was 
covered this morning by Mr. Mosely. And the 
reason why I want to do that is because, although 
no doubt Mr. Mosely has given you a truthful and 
honest statement of his impressions, I found, un- 
fortunately, that that statement did not coincide 
with all my impressions, and I am sure Mr. Mosely 
will accord to me the right of stating what I have 
seen, the impressions that I have found, in regard to 
one or more points mentioned. 

First of all, I want to identify myself in the full- 
est possible degree with what was said by Mr. Mosely 
as to the uniform courtesy "and kindness which I 
have met with at all times. Mr. Maddison of the 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 85 

Iron Founders' Society, and myself, separated from 
the main body of the commission at Chicago, and 
since that time we have traveled I think somewhere 
about 3,000 miles over your railways. We have 
interviewed, I think I would be within the mark in 
saying, some hundreds of workmen, foremen, man- 
agers and other people, from the president down- 
wards, and we have met with the greatest amount 
of courtesy and consideration from every single one, 
and the utmost facilities have been given us for 
seeing what we wished to see and for forming re- 
liable opinions as to what came under our observa- 
tion. So that it was perfectly obvious to us that 
whatever may be the fact as to the improved meth- 
ods — or shall I say rather the different methods — pre- 
vailing on this side to the other side, that you on this 
side feel that you have nothing to fear in showing us 
all that we want to know. We appreciate highly 
that kindness, and we hope that, if at any time a 
similar delegation should come from this side of the 
water, we shall have the opportunity of showing 
our appreciation of it. 

Another point with which I was in hearty agree- 
ment with Mr. Mosely was in regard to that point — 
and here I am only giving voice to my personal 
opinion, which I always do anywhere, and possibly 
I may not speak for some of my colleagues or for 
the trades union movement on the other side, but 
I am going to give you my own opinion — Mr. Mosely 
contended that every man had a right to choose as 
to whether he should be a union man and as to 
whether he should belong to one union or another. 



86 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

I absolutely agree with that sentiment. I have 
never in my own union used my influence or raised 
my hand to force or bring coercion to bear in any 
shape or form on any man to join the union of the 
engineers, and I never will. (Applause.) I believe 
in the force of moral suasion; I believe in having 
behind me, if I have an army at all, an army of will- 
ing men, of colleagues and co-operators instead of 
forced men. And I know that if I had a number 
of forced men behind me the probability is that I 
would find they were no good when the pinch 
came. 

Now to take up those points on which I was not 
altogether in agreement, either as to the facts or 
deductions of Mr. Mosely. Mr. Mosely stated that 
as far as he could gather on this side piece-work was 
more general than on the other side. And further, 
so far as I could gather, he gave piece-work an un- 
qualified endorsement and approval. As far as I 
can ascertain — I do not profess to have the knowl- 
edge of to what extent piece-work obtains on this 
side in all industries — I should be very much sur- 
prised to find that piece-work obtains on this side 
more, taking all industries, than it does on our side, 
where piece-work is the recognized system of pay- 
ment in something like, if my memory serves me 
right — I am not far out at all events — some five- 
eighths of the whole of the organized workers of 
Great Britain. In my own industry on this side of 
the water I find that piece-work is very little more, 
if any more, in vogue than on the other side. So 
much for the facts. In regard to piece-work and 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 87 

the attitude of trades unionism and organized labor 
upon it, I should say that we have no objection to 
working piece-work as such, and that the intro- 
duction of piece-work is very largely a question of 
the surrounding circumstances and the object with 
which piece-work is to be introduced. I have seen 
within this last week a workshop organized in this 
country under piece-work conditions where the 
sanitary arrangements were disgusting; where the 
workmen were poor, timid, spiritless looking creat- 
ures, the very aspect of whom told me they were 
afraid to call their souls their own; where the work- 
shop was congested and dirty, and in every way 
unfit to work in. And I am thoroughly convinced 
that that state of affairs was brought about because 
of the system of contract piece-work in that shop; 
where the work was undertaken to be done by cer- 
tain men who contracted for it and then employed 
boys and youths and specialists, who were cut down 
at the behest of the contractor until there is noth- 
ing more left to cut out from them, and the shop is 
in the condition I have given yoti. Here then the 
attitude of organized labor should be to see that in 
introducing piece-work into any shop that at all 
events the general conditions that obtained before, 
the payment of the ordinary rate of standard wages, 
of special payment for Sundays and holidays or 
other special occasions, should all be maintained, 
and that piece-work is not going to be introduced 
merely for the purpose of substituting individual 
for that collective bargaining that had previously 
obtained. That, in so far as it relates to piece-work, 



88 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

is the view that I entertain and the view I believe 
of organized labor on the other side. 

Again, in regard to machinery. I have not found 
here on this side any man working eight machines. 
I have found just the same as on our side, that certain 
machines into which you can put a piece of iron and 
it is gobbled up in an automatic way, fed forward 
when a piece is cut off and therefore needs no at- 
tention — I have found that such machines as those 
are tended sometimes by a boy, and sometimes half 
a dozen by a man with a boy to help him. Exactly 
the same thing obtains on our side. And I can see 
but very little difference in the use of machinery, 
so far as one machine to one man obtains. I have 
found, however, a general application of scientific 
knowledge. I have found a more general application 
of the latest appliances and the best style tools 
that can be had ; and therefore a considerably larger 
product out of the machines than on our side. That 
is a matter that we might copy with advantage and 
which I mean to tell our people on the other side. 

Well, now, coming to the point of the discussion, 
Mr. Chairman, and you will pardon me for this long 
digression, let me say that I am heartily in favor 
of the principle advocated by Mr. Adams, that is, 
the principle of reason and enlightenment in in- 
dustrial disputes. We have got together now in 
organization. Employers are organized, working- 
men are organized, and I am inclined to think that 
employer and employed are more disposed now to 
respect each other than ever they were before. 
Strikes, I believe, and lockouts have been necessary 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 89 

in times gone by and have fulfilled a useful purpose. 
They have taught each side to respect the other and 
they have impressed the public at large with a sense 
of the seriousness of the labor problem. But now 
that labor and capital are both organized it seems 
to me that there is afforded an opportunity on both 
sides to bring the largest amount of common sense, 
we will say to develop the conscience both on the 
part of the employer and employed, and so bring 
the common sense of the employer or employed 
organization to deal with unscrupulous individuals 
either on one side or the other. On our side of the 
water we have found that employer and employed 
have met together, and, as the Archbishop pointed 
out this afternoon, the very fact of bringing men 
face to face with one another tends in a very large 
extent to minimize the difficulty between them. 
Each recognizes that the other has rights. Each 
recognizes that the other has difficulties, and there- 
fore in bringing them together a very great deal has 
been done to bring reason and justice in and to put 
passion and prejudice out, and in that way a very 
great deal has been done to raise labor questions 
from the low plane of animal and physical contests 
on to the higher plane of reason and justice and 
common sense. Now here comes in the point of 
the paper, as I understand it. Labor is organized 
and capital is organized. As has been pointed out 
by Mr. Adams, the very fact of one or the other ap- 
plying for any public authority or any one else to 
intervene between them is taken as an indication 
of weakness either on one side or the other. Never- 



9 o INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

theless all the time, as has already been pointed out 
by Mr. Adams also, the very fact of their being or- 
ganized implies that each is in a position to inflict 
a greater amount of injury upon the community 
than they had otherwise been able to do. Therefore 
that brings in the community as one of the parties 
and I should say in some disputes almost the first 
party to the dispute, and therefore brings in the 
community as a party having the right to intervene 
and the right to say that at all events some ma- 
chinery shall be set in motion with a view of bringing 
the dispute to a termination. Now what is that 
to be? I was one of a committee recently on be- 
half of the Federation of Labor on the other side 
which discussed this matter. We brought in a 
report and recommendations, which have not been 
adopted, but which nevertheless I believe in at the 
present time. It may not be applicable on this side, 
but I believe would be on the other. I say that 
wherever a strike or a lockout has taken place an 
injury is inflicted upon the community in that 
place. Why not have the right given to the public 
authorities in that district, the local governing 
body, to apply to a central authority? This central 
authority should then set up a commission of in- 
quiry, with a view of publishing the results. I don't 
know how you would interpret that here, but we 
well know how that is meant on the other side. I 
take it that is what Mr. Adams means, for the cen- 
tral body to have some authority which could be 
sent down into the district to call upon each side to 
ascertain in an investigation — to call upon each side 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 91 

to submit the whole facts in regard to the situation 
and thereby to form public opinion as to the merits 
or demerits of the dispute. I believe that is a step 
that might be taken with very great advantage. 
I believe that that is a step that the public ultimately 
will have to take in its own interest. Whether it 
may be desirable to go further than that in the 
course of time is in the lap of the gods. I do not 
know. I am inclined to think myself that if the 
proper authority were in a few instances to inves- 
tigate the facts and then report to public opinion, 
and then in spite of that, the proper authority, 
and public opinion as well, were flouted by either 
one or the other of the parties, that there would be 
some perfection of the machinery whereby such a 
thing could be avoided in the future. At all events, 
Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, such are a few of the 
thoughts that occurred to me in regard to the paper 
that has been read. 

I feel that very great good has been done by 
bringing expert minds to deal with these problems in 
meetings of this character. I feel that very great 
good is being done in bringing together men of all 
classes and all sections in this community, either on 
this side or the other side of the water, to come to- 
gether and discuss these questions, not in the light 
of any set hard and fast economic doctrines, not in 
the light of any hard and fast rule in regard to the 
interests of a class or a section of the country, but to 
bring people together to discuss these questions on 
the broad basis of humanity, and in proportion as 
that is done by this Civic Federation or any similar 



92 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

body, either on our side or the other side, I believe 
that just in that proportion are you doing well for 
your day and generation and doing good not only 
to your own community here, but to the industrial 
community everywhere, the wide world over. (Ap- 
plause.) 

ADJOURNED. 



The first session of the second day was called to 
order at 10:50 a. m. by Chairman Hanna. 

The Chairman: The Committee will be in order. 
The discussion this morning will be opened by Mr. 
John R. Commons, who has charge of the investiga- 
tion in this country and Europe of the subject of the 
restriction of production. Mr. Commons is associated 
with the United States Department of Labor and has 
made this question a study as well as one of inves- 
tigation. 

Mr. John R. Commons: Mr. Chairman and Gentle- 
men — In talking with various parties and reading 
newspapers on the subject of restriction of output, 
it has appeared to me that a good deal of confusion 
exists in mixing up this question with other questions 
regarding labor unions, and the paper that I have 
prepared attempts to make distinctions between the 
question of restriction of output and the other re- 
strictions imposed by labor organizations. This sub- 
ject involves the entire problem of labor unions. 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 



93 



Technically speaking, and in the broadest sense of the 
word, every union that attempts to be more than a 
mutual benevolent society endeavors to restrict the 
employer at some point. It tries to restrict either the 
hours of work or the number of apprentices, or the 
employment of non-unionists, or the method and 
medium of payment, or the use of machinery, or the 
division of labor, or the speed of machinery and the 
speed of work. Even the demand for higher wages 
is a restriction on the freedom of the employer to pay 
as low wages as individuals would accept. In fact, 
the very reason for the existence of a union is an 
effort to interfere at one or more points with the 
liberty of the employer in managing his business. If 
all restrictions and interferences with employers 
should be condemned, does it not follow that all labor 
unions should be condemned? 

But for some reason the condemnation of labor 
unions has not prevailed, and they have sprung up 
and have compelled formal or actual recognition. 
This means that they have compelled employers to 
submit to what, in a wide use of the word, maybe 
called restrictions. I assume that if conditions re- 
main as they have been, that is, if employers deal 
with labor in the future as they have dealt in the 
past, unions will continue to grow, and increasing 
numbers of employers and industries will be brought 
to face union restrictions. 

If labor unions are, in the wide sense of the word, 
restrictive, the question arises, Are all restrictions 
alike? Are some of these restrictions necessary and 
justifiable and others superfluous and wrong? Do all 



94 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 



labor restrictions limit production? Or, are there 
some which limit production and others which do not ? 
And of those which limit production, are there some 
where the limitation is justifiable, because of com- 
pensations in other directions ? And are there others 
where the restriction brings no compensation or in- 
adequate compensation? 

Take first the question of shorter hours. Is the 
shorter work-day a restriction on output? A shorter 
work- day is simply one form of the demand for higher 
wages. It means higher wages for the time at work. 
The same question may, therefore, be asked of wages. 
Does increase in wages restrict output? Now, wages 
and hours of labor are questions exactly the opposite 
from those of output or restriction on output. By 
wages and hours of labor we mean simply the rate 
of pay per hour received by the workman. By out- 
put we mean the amount of product per hour which 
the workman gives in return. Higher wages and 
shorter hours may increase the cost of output, but 
this is a question entirely different from the quantity 
of output. Wages and output together determine 
cost, and if the shorter day or higher wages bring 
greater output per hour, then they are exactly the 
opposite from a restriction on output. This is, in- 
deed, one of the reasons often advanced for shorter 
hours, namely that the longer period for recuperation 
furnishes strength for increasing the speed while at 
work. Closely connected with this is the contention 
that higher wages and shorter hours stimulate labor- 
saving devices in the shape of inventions and im- 
proved business administration, and that the coun- 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 95 

tries of low wages and long hours are countries of 
small output, poor machinery and slow business 
methods. I do not ask what are the limits of truth 
in these contentions. I only ask, Is it not a source 
of confusion and even misrepresentation to identify 
the demand for shorter hours with the policy of re- 
striction of output? Will not these questions be 
more candidly considered when it is recognized 
that in the labor contract there are two bargainers, 
each of which strives to get as much as possible for 
what he gives? What the workman gives is out- 
put. He wants high wages and short hours. 
The employer wants large output. The two demands 
are a matter of business agreement which depends on 
mutual confidence. Will not the negotiations be 
more successful when it is recognized that both de- 
mands are fair and honest, and that in making its 
demands each side is working not only for its own 
interests, but also for the good of the nation as a 
whole? Are not high wages and short hours, on the 
one hand, and large output on the other hand, the 
two grand objects of industrial progress? And where 
employer and employee, by reasonable concessions on 
each side, are able to strike a fair balance between the 
two, are they not thereby through self-interest work- 
ing out the highest interest of all the people? 

Take next the question of apprentices. The union 
apparently has two objects in view: To limit num- 
bers and to give each journeyman an all-around edu- 
cation in the trade. Both of these objects tend, 
apparently, to restrict output. With the modern in- 
creasing specialization the employer does not need 



9 6 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

all-around men and cannot afford to spare the time 
of his foremen and workmen to teach the apprentice 
for three or more years the several branches of the 
trade. Where the boy might become expert and 
speedy in one operation in six months, the union does 
not allow him to specialize until he has passed his 
apprenticeship. I do not know whether or not, in the 
long run and in all trades, this is a restriction on 
output. Apart from the question of wages, does the 
workman who spends three years in learning a trade 
and is then assigned permanently to an operation 
which he might have mastered with great speed in 
six months, does such a workman turn out more pro- 
duction than he would if he had specialized from the 
first? If so, does his greater versatility and superior 
quality of work as an all-around man compensate 
the employer for the time and expense of teaching 
him the entire trade? The individual employer prob- 
ably says no, if we may judge from the large propor- 
tion of workmen who learn their trades in country 
towns, where competition is less strenuous, and then 
seek the cities for journeymen's wages. 

Apprentices might learn their trades in trade 
schools, but this would take off the limitation on 
numbers which the union requires in order to main- 
tain union wages. The uppermost questions in this 
matter, therefore, are these: Are high wages desir- 
able, and if desirable, can they be maintained if the 
limits on apprentices are removed? Also, is an all- 
around education in the trade an advantage to the 
modern form of specialized industry, and if so, can 
this be secured by other means than apprenticeship? 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 



97 



The question of restriction on machinery is con- 
nected with that of high wages and apprenticeship. 
Is it a restriction on output when the union requires 
a three-dollar man to operate a machine that could 
be just as well run by a dollar-and-a-half man? 
When a machine, like the type-setting machine or 
the cigar-making machine, is introduced, the skilled 
workman may either continue to work at the machine 
at his former rate of wages, or he may give way to 
girls and unskilled men at lower wages. If the union 
is strong and wise, the former method will be adopted. 
If the union is weak and short-sighted, the latter will 
be permitted. But the question of restrictions on 
machinery is entirely different from the question of 
high wages for operating machines. One union may 
require three skilled men to a machine, where one 
skilled and two unskilled could do the work. This 
would not be a restriction on output, as it would be 
if the union required four men to operate where three 
would suffice. In the first case the union simply de- 
mands high wages , in the second it tries to ' 'make work. 
I submit that the question of restriction of output 
cannot be discussed until it is clearly distinguished 
from the question of high wages and the means, such 
as apprenticeship or membership in a union, by which 
high wages are secured. A union may demand that 
only skilled men shall be employed on a machine. 
This is not restriction of output, though it may be 
discrimination against the unskilled man who might 
have seoured an advance from common labor to 
machine labor. But is not the question whether 
organized labor discriminates against unorganized 



9 8 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

labor entirely different from the question whether 
organized labor restricts speed and reduces output? 
As long as the two questions are confused, will it 
ever be possible to settle either of them reasonably? 
Take next the question of a minimum wage. 
Here is a question of fact as well as a question of 
theory. The question of fact is this: Is it a mini- 
mum wage or a uniform wage that unions demand? 
And, if a minimum wage, is it so enforced as to 
amount to substantially a uniform or maximum 
wage? Do unions prohibit employers from paying a 
man according to his ability, or do they only pro- 
hibit him from paying less than the minimum and 
permit him to pay as high a maximum as he may 
wish? Here are two entirely different questions, and 
it is useless to discuss either until they have been 
clearly separated. The facts must be agreed upon 
first, and then the discussion must be held to the 
facts, or else nothing but misunderstanding and hos- 
tility will result. It is preposterous to denounce all 
unions for insisting on a uniform wage. The Typo- 
graphical Union permits employers to pay more than 
the minimum. With $27 as the minimum in New 
York, there are newspapers that pay no compositor 
less than $30. The Bricklayers' Union, on the other 
hand, prohibits the employer from paying more than 
the minimum. But here is a question of the evil to 
be met. If the Bricklayers' Union prohibits a con- 
tractor from giving a swift man extra pay to set the 
pace for the others, can the contractor come into 
court with clean hands? Is this a case of higher pay 
for more efficient labor or, rather, a case of forcing 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. gg 

inferior workmen to do as much as superior ones at 
less pay? 

There are also local unions like the tile-layers, 
plumbers and plasterers, which sometimes place an 
absolute limit on the amount of work their members 
shall be permitted to do, and these limits are en- 
forced by fines and penalties. Before these restric- 
tions can be remedied, we must know the reasons 
that have led the unions to adopt them. 

These reasons may be discovered if we proceed to 
the live questions of piece and premium methods of 
payment. The ordinary man will turn out more 
work if paid by the piece than he will if paid by the 
time. In bicycle races there are paced races and 
unpaced races. An automobile or tandem keeps just 
ahead of the bicycle rider to set the pace. Conse- 
quently the records in paced races are 20 per cent, 
to 60 per cent, faster than the unpaced records, and 
the greatest differences are in the longest runs. The 
man with an incentive just ahead of him at every 
move he makes will throw more energy into each 
move, and there will be no alternations of letting up 
and then recovering. He will keep up the pace to 
the end without relaxation. If paced races are pro- 
hibited, only the slower records will be made. Just 
so, if a union prohibits piece and premium systems, 
it restricts output. It may advance different reasons 
for doing so. It may claim that speeding up reduces 
quality. But it is a proper question whether the 
quality of the work belongs to employees to deter- 
mine. Is this not the employer's business? The 
employer is the one who studies the markets. His 

l. of «• 



IO o INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

success depends on making an article which will sell. 
If the public demands cheap goods, he must make 
them. If the public demands better goods, he must 
supply also that demand. Several machine tool- 
makers, finding that piece-work does not secure as 
good quality as they require, have changed to the 
day basis. Other manufacturers who find that piece 
work furnishes both quality and price suitable to 
their line of business, have adopted piece-work. 
Still others wish to experiment in that direction but 
are deterred by the unions. Now the employer takes 
the risk of the business. He guarantees wages and 
takes chances of profits. He is a kind of buffer be- 
tween the wage-earner and the purchaser. If unions 
exert themselves to get higher wages, which the em- 
ployer must pay whether he loses money or makes 
money, does it not follow that they should leave the 
employer free to find the ways and means by which 
the money is earned to pay the wages ? If the union 
restricts the employer in the matter of wages and 
hours, is it not presumptuous and unbusiness-like 
that it should also restrict him in the kind and quality 
of goods which he sells in order to pay wages and re- 
duce hours? 

Again, the resistance to piece-work and the limita- 
tions on output are sometimes defended on the ground 
that increased output throws men out of work. I 
find the following statement coming from the head 
of the International Machinists' Union, intended to 
show the gains and benefits received by members of 
that union during two years. He says: "Thirty- 
seven lodges reported having prevented the introduc- 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. IO i 

tion of the piece-work system in shops employing 
4,500 men. This system, when in practical opera- 
tion, reduces the force on a fair estimate one-fourth. 
Thus the positions of 1,125 m en have been saved, 
which amounts to $2,475 P er day, or $744*675 per 
year." He also says: "We prevented the introduc- 
tion of the two-machine system in 137 shops, em- 
ploying 9,500 men." It is safe to say that if this 
system had been introduced, the force of men would 
be reduced one-eighth; hence in this we saved the 
positions of 1,188 men, whose daily wages would 
amount to $2,613.60 per day, or $818,056.80 per 
year." 

I do not know to what extent the unions endorse 
this line of argument and base their policies upon it. 
Is this the strongest argument or the only argument 
that they can advance to sustain restriction of out- 
put? Can restriction of output be rationally ad- 
vocated on the ground that it "makes more work: " 

There is another argument often brought against 
piece-work, namely, that it drives the workman to 
over-exertion, injures his health and shortens his 
trade life. The sweating system in the clothing trade 
is essentially a piece-work system. But the question 
comes up, Is it piece-work alone or is it other condi- 
tions connected with piece-work that have an in- 
jurious effect? In the clothing trade we have immi- 
gration, over-supply of labor, seasonal work, long 
hours, small contractors, cut -throat competition. 
These conditions would drive workmen to over-exer- 
tion on a day- wage basis, but the piece-work system 
probably intensifies the effect of the other conditions. 



102 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE 

To what extent do these and similar conditions exist 
in other occupations? If employers wish to be free 
to adopt the piece-work system, should they not 
join with the unions in studying and endeavoring to 
remedy these other conditions that go to make 
unions hostile to piece-work? There are unions and 
workmen in many establishments who approve of 
piece-work and encourage an increase of output. 
What are the collateral conditions which reconcile 
them to this policy? Is it practicable to adopt the 
system of piece-work and increased output in such 
a way as to protect the health and prolong the trade 
life of the workmen? 

This leads to the question of responsibility of em- 
ployers for restrictions imposed by unions. The 
object of piece and premium systems is to increase 
output. The inducement offered is higher pay for 
greater output. If the workman increases his pro- 
duction fifty per cent, when put on piece-work, does 
it prove that he has been cheating his employer when 
he was paid by the day? 

There can be no lasting solution of this problem as 
long as each side believes the other is dishonest. If 
the employer believes the workman has been cheating 
him, he at once proceeds to cut the price. He reduces 
the piece rate so that, even with the added exertion, 
the earnings are reduced to the day-rate level. Is it 
not true that workmen almost universally believe 
that this is what employers will do if they increase 
their output? Believing this, is there any other 
possible way for them to protect themselves except 
by restricting production? They say that the em- 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 103 

plovers bring forward the earnings of the swiftest 
men as the standard of output for the others. Be- 
lieving this, what other remedy is there than to organ- 
ize a union and prohibit the swiftest men from earning 
so much ? The question appears to be one of mutual 
confidence in the honesty of the other side. But it 
is more than honesty. It is also a question of psy- 
chology. It is a question of human motive. The 
paced bicycle race is 20 per cent, to 60 per cent, 
faster than the unpaced race. It is based on a differ- 
ent psychology and on additional motives that are 
called into play. It is not a matter of honesty; it 
is a matter of inducement. Is not the same true of 
piece and premium wages, compared with day wages? 
Is it not perfectly honest and human that men will 
turn out more work at a piece rate than at a day rate ? 

But this is not enough. It is equally important to 
know how much more. Should a piece rate be based 
on earning 10 per cent, more or on earning 50 per 
cent, more than the day rate? Should the piece rate 
be calculated on the earnings of the swiftest man, or 
the slowest men, or the average of all? 

Again, what guarantees will be given for the con- 
tinuance of the rates ? How will they be revised when 
new machinery is introduced? Will they be guar- 
anteed for one year or for five years? And at the 
end of the period, on what basis will they be revised 
for another year or another five years? Will this re- 
vision be on a 10 per cent, differential or on a 50 
per cent, differential? Will it be on the basis, say, 
of the ten swiftest men, or on the basis of the average 
earnings of the shop ? All these are questions which 



io 4 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

it appears to me employers and employees should 
agree upon in advance and bind themselves to abide 
by their agreement. Is it reasonable to expect that 
with such an understanding and with confidence in 
its execution the strongest arguments of unions for 
limiting production would be met and overcome? 
And furthermore, can either side be held to its agree- 
ment unless there is strong organization on both 
sides ? 

I have touched on only a few of the questions which 
this subject presents. I wish to ask, Cannot this 
great problem be met frankly and openly without 
recrimination? If unions restrict output, can they 
not frankly admit it and give their reasons? If em- 
ployers provoke restrictions, can they not frankly ad- 
mit it ? Cannot the two thus come together, eliminate 
the false reasons and remedy the true ones? Unions 
appear to be increasing in numbers and power. If 
they rely on unsound theories of political economy 
they ought to be thankful for honest criticism. If 
employers provoke them to unsound practices, em- 
ployers also should welcome honest criticism. The 
outside public is vitally interested, but will not con- 
sent that one side shall use this as an excuse to crush 
the other. Yet the public cannot interfere in the tech- 
nical details. It can only hope that the parties immedi- 
ately interested will settle the matter fairly between 
themselves. Too long has the problem been left to 
ill-informed writers and speakers. It is an encourag- 
ing sign that through the trade agreement system 
employers and workmen themselves are taking up the 
question in a scientific way. The present conference 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 105 

is an outgrowth of this system. Cannot this confer- 
ence raise the question to a high level of discussion 
and lay down sound principles that will lead to a 
fair solution? 

The Chairman: Gentlemen, the next paper will 
be from Frederick A. Halsey, associate editor of the 
American Machinist, on the topic, "The Premium 
Plan of Paying for Labor." 

Mr. Halsey spoke as follows: Mr. Chairman and 
Gentlemen — The first article of my creed relative to 
the treatment of the employee by the employer is 
that he shall treat him like a man, and one of the 
first conclusions following that line of policy is that 
he shall not make presents to him. I have very little 
faith in many things that are being done in the name 
of social betterment, because they savor so much of 
gratuities. Of course, in so far as these things lead to 
better living and higher thinking, they are commend- 
able, but the systematic giving away of things which 
have a money value is not, I believe, permissible. 

In this world men want pay, not gifts. Raise a 
man's wages and you add to his self-respect ; system- 
atically make presents to him and you cultivate the 
spirit of the waiter, dependent on his tips. 

I believe we must base our solution of the labor 
problem on human nature. However well or ill we 
may think of human nature, one thing at least we 
know — that of all the things that come within human 
ken, this is one of the few that with latitude, longi- 
tude, nationality or lapse of time does not change, 
and hence, whatever is based upon human nature is. 



106 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

at least, founded upon a rock. Instead, therefore, of 
building upon the shifting sands of altruism or of 
brotherly love, I believe we must build upon the rock 
of human nature. The personal pecuniary interest 
of employer and employee — these are the warp and 
the woof from which the fabric must be woven, these 
are the needle and the shuttle with which the seam 
must be sewn. 

The system of premium payment is in a sense in- 
tended to split the difference between day's work and 
the piece-work systems. By that I mean that it is 
at bottom a rate of payment per day, just like day's 
work, but above that is placed an additional payment 
dependent upon the amount of output, the net result 
being that the employee's wages increase with the 
output, but not so rapidly as the output. In that 
respect it differs from piece-work alone. With piece- 
work and between cuts in the piece prices, the pay 
is in proportion to the output. With the prem- 
ium method of payment the pay increases 
with the output, but not so rapidly. Since 
an increase of output is followed by a less than 
proportionate increase of wages, it follows that an 
increase of output results in an increase of wages 
per day, but a reduction of wages per piece of product, 
and the system is, therefore, in a sense, co-operative. 

This is an appropriate place to say regarding Mr. 
Mosely's remarks of yesterday on piece-work, that I 
am quite sure it does not work as well in this country 
as he seems to think. That the American employer 
does not cut the piece rates as freely as is done in 
Europe is, I am sure, a thesis that cannot be success- 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 107 

fully defended. At the same time Mr. Mosely's con- 
clusions may have been the result of a loose use of 
words. 

We have in this country a system known as the 
New England Contract Plan, which is often confused 
with piece-work, and, in fact, often goes by that 
name. It undoubtedly works more smoothly than 
straight piece-work, and because of the confusion of 
names piece-work at times receives credit which does 
not belong to it. 

The result of the division of the gain due to in- 
creased production between the employer and the 
employee is at first sight paradoxical, i. e., the wages 
go up and the cost goes down at the same time, and 
the one because of the other. It may be objected 
and it has been objected that this is not equitable to 
the workman; that it is only proper and right that 
he should be paid in proportion to his output, that 
is, by straight piece-work. To explain in general 
terms why I do not think this is the case is a long 
story, but a concrete illustration will explain it as 
well as a long dissertation would do. Not long ago 
I was at the works of the Lodge & Shipley Machine 
Tool Co., of Cincinnati. Mr. Lodge was showing me 
about, and he pointed to an old lathe that had come 
down to him from the early days of his business life, 
and remarked that that lathe had cost him $625, but 
that to-day he would be glad to sell a lathe, better 
made in every respect, containing much more iron 
and of a better design, for $300. Now, it seems to 
me as plain as anything in the world can be that 
piece-work rates, based upon a price of $625, could 



108 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

not possibly be maintained when the price had fallen 
to $300. In other words, as I look upon it, cuts in 
the piece rates are the necessity and the result of 
falling prices. If an employer does not cut them 
from choice, he will eventually do it from necessity. 
These cuts are inherent in the piece-work system, and 
it is largely to get over the necessity of cutting the 
rates that the premium plan was devised. 

Had that lathe been made by piece-work when sold 
at the old price, cuts in the piece prices would have 
been inevitable before the present price was reached. 
This condition of falling prices when considerable 
periods of time are considered, is universal, and it 
necessitates repeated cuts in the piece prices paid to 
the workman. In other words, payment of wages in 
proportion to the output — that is, by a price per 
piece — is, when considerable periods of time are con- 
sidered, impossible, and it was to remedy this con- 
dition that the premium plan was devised. By 
giving the workman a portion only of the gain due 
to increased output and giving the remainder to the 
employer, the workman is rewarded for increased 
effort, while a reduction of cost is provided to accom- 
pany future reduced prices, and the necessity for re- 
peated changes in the rates under which the em- 
ployee works is obviated. The premium plan, in 
short, looks into the future, whereas the piece-work 
plan shuts its eyes to it. 

The plan recognizes further the difference between 
the points of view of the employer and the employee 
as regards wages. The employer, naturally, meas- 
ures wages in units of output, whereas the employee 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 109 

as naturally measures them in units of time. No 
man who earns his own living has any way of esti- 
mating the value of his labor except by the income 
it gives him per day, per month or per year. That 
is true of all grades of labor; from the man who 
carries a hod to the President of the United 
States Steel Corporation. It is true of all trades, 
professions and occupations. The ignoring of this 
difference in the point of view of the employer and 
the employee leads to an apparent antagonism be- 
tween them which does not, in fact, exist. We say 
that their relations are essentially those of buyer and 
seller, and just as the interests of the buyer are with 
low, and those of the seller with high prices, so, we 
say, the interests of the employers are with low, and 
of the employee with high wages. That statement 
of the case is one of those half-truths that is as pretty 
nearly as good as a whole falsehood, and it is a half 
truth because we ignore the difference between these 
points of view. Stated fully, the statement becomes, 
The interests of the employer are with low wages per 
unit of product, while those of the employee are with 
high wages per unit of time, and when we recognize 
the full statement of the case there is no resulting 
antagonism whatever. The premium plan brings 
about just this condition of high wages per unit of 
time with low wages per unit of product, and it would 
seem that if there is any possible basis of united and 
co-operative action it is found in this system. 

I hold in my hand a collection of letters from a 
number of employers who use the premium plan. 
Of these the first is from Mr. James Rowan of Glas- 



no INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

gow, Scotland, in which he says: ''You will see from 
the newspapers that our federation has come to an 
agreement wth the Amalgamated Society of En- 
gineers. This has given a tremendous lift to the 
premium system and everybody is anxious to get 
it into their workshops." This agreement between 
the association of machine shop proprietors of Great 
Britain and the chief union with which they have to 
deal, is the most important event in the history of 
the premium plan. It shows what I have 
often remarked, that this system has been taken 
up a great deal more intelligently and energetically 
in England and Scotland than here. Of course here 
I have an excellent opportunity to direct attention 
to it which I have improved. In Great Britain, while 
Mr. Rowan has been quite active, he has had no such 
opportunity as mine, and the plan has grown in use 
there because of its merits and because the people are 
alive. I am quite sure that those of us who imagine 
that England has gone to sleep will wake up some 
day and find that it is we who have been dreaming. 
In such accounts of the workings of the plan as I 
have heretofore made, the aim has been to em- 
phasize the employer's side of it, because, in the 
nature of things, it is the employer who must take 
the initiative. The workman's side has not been 
ignored, but at the same time the emphasis has been 
on the employer's side. These letters have been 
brought out by correspondence, in which I asked 
for the results which have been obtained by the 
workmen, by which I mean the actual increase of 
wages that have resulted from the workings of the 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 



in 



plan. It so happens, however, that this informa- 
tion is not easy to get from the usual set of cost books. 
Any respectable set of cost books will enable one 
to compare the total premium earnings of a de- 
partment with the total wages of the department, 
but as some or many in the department may not 
have premium work, such an exhibit may give the 
premiums of a few as a percentage of the wages of 
many. To compare the premiums with the daily 
wages of those engaged on premium work is another 
matter, and this, while the comparison needed, I shall 
not in all cases be able to give. Under many sys- 
tems of cost keeping it can only be obtained by 
laboriously summing up the individual time tickets, 
and no one can be criticised for declining to do this. 
In these letters are various expressions of opinion 
of the employees' views of the system. Of course 
these views come through the employers' spectacles, 
for which allowance must be made, taking the state- 
ments for what they are worth. 

My first letter giving figures is from a shop in 
which the system has been in use for ten or eleven 
years, it having been one of the first to take it up. 
In this letter I find: "We find our men ask for prem- 
iums whenever a job is given them where the num- 
ber of pieces and the time of operation is sufficient 
to warrant it. We find that the premium plan gives 
stimulus to many otherwise monotonous repetitive 
jobs, which in our case, where most of our employees 
are young men, is a great factor in keeping them 
with us." The difficulty of obtaining the average 
results for a period of time to which I have referred 



H2 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

has caused this correspondent to send some repre- 
sentative jobs from different departments, which, 
while not so satisfactory as a general average, arel 
nevertheless worth giving. In one department the 
average increase of wages in doing thirteen pieces 
of work was twenty-six per cent. ; in another depart- 
ment the average increase in doing fifteen pieces of 
work was thirty per cent. All of the earnings of one 
man who has been pretty steadily engaged on prem- 
ium work for an entire year show an increase for 
the year of fifteen per cent. 

The second letter reads: "I send herewith a list 
showing the wages before we started the premium 
system and afterward." Then follows the list, which 
includes the eight operations of one department, the 
average increase in wages for the whole department 
being fourteen per cent. 

The third letter is from Scotland, and you will ob- 
serve that the results are not affected by geography 
nor nationality. The letter reads: "We have had 
this system in our works for about four or five years. 
We are very well pleased with the results, and as far 
as we are able to learn our men are also well pleased. 
We have selected at random the following twelve 
men, and we give you their rate of weekly wages and 
we also give you the money they have earned per 
week on an average over three months." The 
figures show average increased wages of eighteen per 
cent. 

The fourth letter is signed by a British name that 
stands so high upon the roll of great and honorable 
achievement that it is a genuine hardship not to be 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 



"3 



permitted to give it. The premium earnings of 
those earning premiums in a department are com- 
pared with the daily wages of all in the department, 
but as the percentage of those earning premiums is 
given allowance may be made for this. The exhibit 
is in tabular form thus : 

FITTING WORK 



Date 


Percentage of Employees 
Earning Premiums 


Average Percentage of 

Increase in Wages to 

Entire Department due 

to the Premiums Earned 


July 9 


51. 1 


IO-35 


" 16 


63o 


14. 1 


" 23 


68.8 


17. 1 


" 30 


63-4 


12.75 


August 6 


80. 


17.73 


" 13 


79-7 


19.29 



ORDINARY MACHINE - 


WORK 


February 12 

March 5 

August 13 


20.7 
63 -5 
7i. 


3 29 
21.3 
19-53 



MILLING WORK 



August 6 
" 13 



100. 
95-6 



30.9 

34- 



The total amount of work from which this table was made up exceeds % 
36,000 hours. 



A western machine tool building company reports: 
"We are running our entire productive force on it, 
and the premium earnings average about eight per 
cent, of our pay roll, but increasing daily. We have 



H4 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 



heard of nothing but expressions of satisfaction from 
our men, and venture the opinion that should we 
discontinue using the system the cream of our em- 
ployees would hunt up a premium shop." 

I have next a table which was published in the 
American Machinist about three years ago. It is 
quite comprehensive and is free from any possible 
suspicion of bias in its compilation, because it in- 
cludes all the work that had been done in this man- 
ner up to that time. It includes 20,000 hours of 
work, and shows an average increase of wages of 
twenty-nine per cent. The next letter gives twenty- 
four representative cases, in which the average in- 
crease of wages was twenty-eight per cent. A 
second letter from the same party gives the average 
increase for all who worked on premium work during 
the then last pay period. The total number of hours 
of work included is 15,430, and the average increase 
was seventeen per cent. 

The next letter is from Scotland and reads: "We 
beg to say that we have only had the premium sys- 
tem in operation in our works for a few months and 
it is not yet sufficiently developed for us to give you 
any detailed information about it. We can only say 
generally that we consider it to have been a great ad- 
vantage, both to ourselves and to the men who have 
worked under it. Roughly speaking, we think the 
premiums earned have been about twenty-five per 
cent, over time wages." 

The next exhibit is the most comprehensive of 
all, as it gives the average gains for a period of thir- 
teen months. During this time the total amount 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 115 

paid out in premiums alone was over $22,000, while 
during the last six months the amount thus paid out 
was over $15,000. During the whole period covered 
by the table the average increase in wages was 
8.3 cents, and during the last six months of the 
period nine cents per hour. 

The next letter is from Scotland and reads: "We 
have taken three sample fortnightly pays, one each 
in 1900, 1 90 1 and 1902, and we give you the results, 
but the figures for 1901 are slightly abnormal, owing 
to an unusual amount of overtime at that date. 
The effect of overtime is to reduce the percentage 
of premium to ordinary wage, because the premium 
rate is calculated only on the normal wage rate, 
whereas the payment is made with an extra for 
overtime. This is the reason for the apparent re- 
duction in percentage of premiums in this case. 

Following are the increases for the three pay periods : 

1900 16% 

19 01 i3-4% 

i9 02 17-6% 

Another letter from Scotland pleads lack of time 
and includes no figures, but says: "Generally, how- 
ever, we may say the premium system has been 
with us a great success. The men like it and we 
like it, and the men are continually asking that jobs 
which are at present not made on the premium sys- 
tem may be placed on the system." 

A manufacturer of electrical machinery gives the 
increases on general classes of work, which run thus : 



n6 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

Class of work. Premium per hour, 

Cents. 

Lathe 5.7 

Boring mill 8.7 

Shaper 2.0 

Commutator building 5.5 

Punch press 7.3 

Armature winding 6.9 

Still another letter from Scotland says: "In 1899 
the average earnings per. hour of all our men at 
machines were increased by 20 per cent. In 1900 
they were increased by 23 per cent., and in 1901 
1901 by 31 per cent." 

Practically all of the above letters are from machine 
shops, for which the system was devised and in which 
it has been most largely used. The next, however, 
is from a firm of manufacturing chemists, who say: 
"In talking the subject over with the men I find 
them well satisfied, and in most cases they have 
averaged twelve dollars a month in premiums." 

A firm of steam engine builders gives figures for 
the average increase during the first six months of 
the present year (1902) to all who have worked 
under the system. These figures show the increased 
wages due to the operation of the system to have been 
18.2 per cent. The system has been in use in these 
works for about three years, and the above figures 
thus represent a fairly matured state of the system's 
operation. 

A firm of brick and clay working machinery makers 
say: "The average increase in wages to our men 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 117 

when working on premium work is at least twenty 
per cent, over the amount paid them when working 
day work." 

Another exhibit includes over 86,000 hours of 
work, and is especially interesting because the work 
is that of feeding automatic machines, which is done 
by boys. In this class of work there is apparently 
small opportunity for gain, but, nevertheless, the 
boys increased their average earnings by nine per cent. 

My next and last letter outlines so clearly the 
differences between the workings of the piece-work 
and the premium plans that, coming from one who 
has both plans before him in the same works, it 
seems worthy of a more extended extract than has 
been given from previous letters. The letter says: 

"The first three months under the premium plan 
the workmen averaged 6.2 cents per hour over their 
day ratings. After it was introduced we had no 
trouble whatever with the system. The men seem 
to like it, and much prefer to work under this system 
than by contract. We have occasionally had to 
transfer a man from this department (the premium 
plan is used in but one department of the works, 
F. A. H.) to others a short time, in which the regu- 
lar force would have contract work. In a short 
time the men thus transferred, if not returned to 
their old job or department, would ask to go back, 
or, failing in getting back, would leave our employ- 
ment rather than work under the contract system. 

"I know other systems will perhaps reduce the 
cost of the labor just as effectively as the premium 
system, but they do it with much more friction and 



n8 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

the management soon loses the confidence of the 
workmen. The greatest evil of the other systems 
is the continuous slashing of the piece prices. We 
have tried to handle this with tact, but we find a man 
will stand it until he believes he cannot endure it 
longer and then leave. His price may have been 
perfectly proper, and still the idea of continually 
cutting him has caused him to lose his confidence 
in the company and he leaves." 

A Gentleman: Some gentleman here desires that 
you give a definition of premium system. 

Mr. Halsey: The premium system is that system, 
or any system , by which the gains due to increased 
effort by workmen are divided between the workman 
and his employer. It is, in a sense, profit-sharing 
applied to the individual workman. Profit-sharing 
makes a division of profits from whatever source 
they may come. The premium plan divides the 
gains made by the individual workman. 

A Gentleman: How is the division made? 

Mr. Halsey: By making a payment in money for 
all time saved in producing a piece of work. 

A Gentleman: But how is it divided? 

Mr. Halsey: From one-third to one-half of the 
whole gain is given to the workmen. In the majority 
of cases the workman gets one-half and the employer 
the other half of the gain. 

Archbishop Ireland: I would ask, How do the 
labor unions generally look upon the premium sys- 
tem? 

Mr. Halsey: The union leaders are here and can 
speak for themselves. As I have already stated, 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 



119 



the unions in Great Britain have agreed, through 
their leaders, to give the system a trial. In this 
country, so far as I know, no union has official ly 
withdrawn its opposition to it, though many union 
men are working under it. 

Archbishop Ireland: The system, if adopted, 
would do entirely away with the objection that the 
man is kept down, would it not? It encourages indi- 
vidual skill. 

Mr. Halsey: I think the criticisms of British em- 
ployees relate to initiative as regards suggestions, 
rather than initiative in increasing the output. Ac- 
cording to my observations, the chief opposition 
among the unions, at least a large element of the 
opposition, is due to the fact that they confound the 
system with piece-work. Their opposition to piece- 
work has my entire approval — not, of course, that I 
approve of all their reasons for this opposition, but 
some of these reasons cannot be gainsaid and are 
sufficient. In so far as they think this is the same 
thing in disguise, I cannot criticise them very strongly 
for waiting a while. At the same time, I do not know 
of any case in which the plan has been used for any 
considerable period in which the opposition has not 
disappeared. The object of the system is to en- 
courage individual skill by paying increased wages 
for increased product. 

A Gentleman: How does it work in this country? 

Mr. Halsey: I have made a list of those users of 
the plan that have come to me. It is very incom- 
plete, and in fact, I found that I was missing so many 
names that, six months ago, I gave up trying to 



i2o INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

extend it, especially as I had accumulated enough 
names to serve as references to those who ask for 
references. The list includes from forty-five to fifty 
names, although Mr. Rowan informed me six months 
ago that there were that number using it in Great 
Britain alone. 

A Gentleman: What are the objections to the 
piece system? 

Mr. Halsey: The perpetual cuts in the piece rates. 
Mr. Gompers: Will you please state again how 
many hours the calculation was based upon? I 
understood you to say 86,000 hours. 

Mr. Halsey: That referred to a single exhibit. 
There was one exhibit in which boys were feeding 
automatic machines. The number of hours included 
in that statement is 86,000. 

Mr. Gompers: That is in the aggregate. 
Mr. Halsey: Yes. Of course you realize that in 
feeding automatic machines there is not the oppor- 
tunity for gain there is in other classes of work. 

Mr. Gompers: Has any calculation been made be- 
tween the earnings in the form of wages and the 
premium, as compared to the wages earned in other 
establishments in the same industry? 

Mr. Halsey: Not to my knowledge. These com- 
parisons all show the increase that has been obtained 
in the same establishment. 

Mr. Gompers: But it does not show whether the 
wages and premiums equal or exceed or are lower 
than the wages earned in other establishments of the 
same industry? 

Mr. Halsey: No. It is difficult enough to get 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 121 

such comparisons as those given. Your question is 
very pertinent, but I do not think such a comparison 
as you name can be had. 

Mr. Gompers: That is very true. 

A Gentleman: I should like to ask what happens 
when improved methods are introduced? 

Mr. Halsey: That depends upon the locality, and 
to answer it fully would involve going into the matter 
quite deeply. Mr. Rowan, whose letter I read, has 
a modification which he works in Scotland and which 
he thinks is an important improvement by which 
no change whatever is made. My own idea is 
that when improved machinery is brought in, then 
the gains due to that machine do not by right belong 
to the men but to the employer, and there should be 
a new adjustment of rates. I have always insisted 
there should be no change of the rates except in 
cases of that kind. So long as the method of pro- 
duction is not changed there should be no change in 
the rates. 

A Gentleman : Have you any reason for supposing 
that the rate of wages paid in these establishments- 
of which you have given us reports is less than the 
rate of union wages? 

Mr. Halsey: I am quite sure it is not so far. I 
understand your idea to be the guarding of the work- 
men against reductions, regarding which there are 
many points of view. There is the large view that 
efficient labor is worth more than inefficient labor, 
and I hold that it is impossible to get the premium 
output without the premium wage, just as impossible 
as for the manufacturer to get an efficient workman 



122 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

for an inefficient workman's pay. Again, a union 
gets an increase of wages by a strike. The men have 
no guarantee that the increase will be maintained, 
but they do not refuse to take it on that account. 
I maintain that an increase gained by the premium 
plan is more secure than by any other, because for the 
increase the men give an equivalent. The workman is 
still further safeguarded by the fact that the acceptance 
or refusal of the terms offered always lies with him. The 
system is not compulsory and cannot be made so. 
The employer offers a certain amount (premium) for 
each hour saved, and this the workman may accept 
or reject, as he sees fit. In this the plan is, I believe, 
unique, and this feature alone is, I believe, enough to 
safeguard the workman against cuts in the rates. 
At bottom, this system simply systematizes the 
recognition of merit. Instead of, as usual, leaving 
that recognition to general observation, with possi- 
bilities of favoritism on the part of foremen, it sys- 
tematizes the matter and pays each one in accordance 
with his merits. It is a commonplace of the system 
that it discovers the good men. I have been repeat- 
edly surprised at the broad views held by many em- 
ployers regarding this question of wages. I have 
been told repeatedly: "Wages are secondary. 
What we want is output." 

Mr. Mosely: I understood you to say the unions 
as a whole object to the premium system because it 
leads to the cutting of price. Is that your experi- 
ence? 

Mr. Halsey : That objection is legitimate as against 
piece-work, but not as against the premium system, 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 123 

which was devised expressly to avoid such cutting. 
Piece-work is, on its face, a system of rewards, but 
in point of fact it is a system of punishments, and 
worse still, a system of punishments for doing well. 
A workman under piece-work does the best he can, 
and when he gets his wages beyond a certain limit 
his piece rates are cut. He is then compelled to work 
harder than before for the old income, and this is the 
direct result of his efforts to do well. 

The Chairman: Along the same line the next 
speaker will be Mr. James O'Connell, president of the 
International Association of Machinists. 

James O'Connell: Mr. President and Gentlemen 
— You have listened to the reading of two papers 
this morning, one by Mr. Commons on the limitation 
of output, incidentally touching upon the proposition 
of piece-work; and the other by Mr. Halsey, on the 
premium plan. 

I trust, therefore, you will bear with me for a few 
moments, for as a practical man — having spent 
twenty years in the machine shop — and knowing 
something of the practical side of these questions, I 
feel that I can speak from the standpoint of one who 
has experienced the bad effects of piece-work, and 
representing as I do an international organization 
which has had much to do with questions of piece- 
work, premium plans and so-called restrictions of 
output. 

I have had not only an opportunity of investigating 
these questions in the United States, but I have also 
visited England, Ireland and Scotland, and while 



124 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 



there made some investigation as to the conditions 
prevailing in those countries. 

We have among us those who espouse certain ideas 
as panaceas for the cure of all diseases and ills to 
which the human family is liable. In our political life 
we have various forms of political parties, each be- 
lieving it is right. The prohibitionists believe 
that if the liquor traffic was abolished all would be 
plain sailing; the populist believes that we should 
walk in the middle of the road; the socialist has his 
own theory, and the anarchist still another, but in 
practical every-day life we must have facts, and the 
best evidence of our success in the future must be 
to a large degree governed by the history of the past. 

This morning we have listened to two gentlemen 
whose ideas very largely differ as to the practical 
method of operating the workshops of this country. 
One cites a limitation of the output in the machine 
shop and believes that restrictions exist, and that the 
piece-work system might successfully be put in opera- 
tion. The other believes that the piece-work system 
would not bring about the desired result, but recom- 
mends a premium plan or profit-sharing. Both believe 
they are right, but in my opinion, both are wrong. 

The piece-work question when presented to the 
American workman is like waving a red flag before a 
mad bull. History shows that piece-work means to 
the workman increased output, coupled with a re- 
duction in wages, unfavorable conditions of employ- 
ment, unsanitary conditions, cultivation of man's 
selfishness, loss of desire to co-operate with his fellow 
shopmates — in a word, the whole history of the piece- 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 125 

work proposition in this country has been unfavorable, 
because of the enforced hardships under which the 
men worked and the inevitable reduction in their 
wages. 

We are told that the employers want to be fair in 
this matter, and I desire to say here that we have 
many fair employers — in fact, thousands of them — 
but I have yet to find an employer of labor who has 
introduced the system of piece-work, profit-sharing, 
gang system, or any other means whereby the men 
worked by the piece, who has not at some time during 
the life of such a system reduced the rate of wages, 
and who has not sought to pit the swiftest, strongest 
and ablest man against the poorest and weakest one. 
The man who is beginning to grow old is, naturally, 
a little slower, sight beginning to fail, finds himself 
in the position of having his living dictated by the 
more speedy and younger man; his rate constantly 
decreasing because of the speed-maker or pace-maker 
against whom he is pitted. 

To illustrate: In the city in which we are now 
holding this meeting a very large manufacturing es- 
tablishment , employing thousands of workmen , has 
had a profit-sharing system in vogue for a number 
of years. The system provided that if it took ten 
days for ten men to build a certain machine and these 
ten men built a machine in nine days, they were given 
one day's profit. If the next machine they built 
took eleven days, one day was charged against them 
on the books and the next time they gained another 
day the books were balanced. The result of this 
method of paying the men was, that, although they 



126 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

had never belonged to an organization of labor and 
had no use for one (as it is true where you find piece- 
work you find very little organization), the men 
struck for the abolition of the system after having 
worked under it for several years, and no labor leaders 
had anything to do with their trouble. They sent 
for Mr. Gompers and myself to come to New York 
and try and straighten the matter out for them. We 
did so, and succeeded. We found upon investigation 
that the men in that factory had not taken out of 
the company's coffers one cent in premium or profit 
for several years, but the books of the company 
showed that the men were indebted to the firm 
$47,000, and therefore no premium on work per- 
formed by the men could be secured until the in- 
debtedness had been paid and the books balanced. 

Do you expect men to accept a system of that kind 
freely and without question? 

Another firm in the State of New York adopted 
what Mr. Halsey is pleased to call the "premium 
plan." They say to a man, if it takes you ten hours 
to do ten pieces of work and you will do these ten 
pieces in nine hours, then we will allow you one 
hour's premium, to be divided between you and us. 
It worked out as follows: If a man was averaging 
25 cents an hour and he secured one hour's premium 
the firm would allow him 12J cents extra for his 
hour and keep 12-j- for itself. What right, I ask, has 
any firm to take 1 2-J cents from my hour's labor that 
I have honestly earned? What right have they to 
fine me 12J cents for my increased production? 
What right has Mr. Halsey to say to me, because I 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 



127 



am a young, active, energetic machinist, if I increase 
my output 10 per cent, that I am to be fined 50 
per cent, of the output for my efforts? The firm is 
at no loss because of the increased output; its fixed 
charges are no greater, while on the contrary a very 
great saving must come to the company in fixed 
costs. It is absurd that because of special energy 
and increased effort on my part I should be fined 
50 per cent, of my earnings for the ambition I had 
shown in increasing the output. But when we com- 
plain to the firm they say to us, Have you not been 
robbing us in the past ? You have been loafing ; you 
have not produced as you should; when my back 
was turned you idled the time away. I desire to 
say without fear of contradiction that this is abso- 
lutely untrue. The employer who makes these state- 
ments acknowledges the weakness of his position and 
asserts that the superintendency of his business has 
been of the very worst character. In my opinion, 
the entire fault with the whole question of so-called 
limitation of production or output is in the superin- 
tendency of the plants. Not the fault of the men nor 
the employer. In our growing institutions of to-day, 
the owners know but little of the real workings of 
their business inside the factory or workshop. They 
are the financiers, but the practical side of their work- 
shop is unknown to them; they are unacquainted 
with their workmen; seldom visit inside their fac- 
tories or workshops, but are constantly engaged in 
financiering their business. 

A large pump manufacturing company, now a part 
of the American Pump Company, introduced a plan 



128 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

similar to Mr. Halsey's premium plan, and said to the 
men, commencing on a certain date every workman 
who produced one-tenth more than formerly will be 
given fifty per cent, in excess of his former rate. 
The men did not quite understand the proposition, 
but went on in their usual way, put forth an increased 
effort to enlarge the output for a given time. At 
the end of a week an increase was shown, but the 
workmen received for it only fifty per cent, of the 
increased output, the firm taking fifty per cent, to 
itself, thus practically imposing a fine upon the men 
for increasing the production of the plant. There 
had been no additional costs to the company in 
operating its plant nor for the superintendency 
thereof. As a result of all this, the men refused to 
work longer under the system and a strike was in- 
evitable, but the company avoided this by agreeing 
to return to the day system. 

Piece-work, premium plan, gang-profit-sharing, 
etc., when boiled down all mean the same thing; in- 
creased production, decreased wages. We go to the 
employer and say, "We don't wane to accept the piece- 
work system; we are willing to do a fair day's work 
for a fair day's pay, and we are perfectly willing that 
you should speed your machine to suit yourself. We 
further agree that you should furnish such tools as 
you believe will best operate your plant and we will 
agree to operate such machinery, but we are not 
willing to work under a system which we know will 
tend towards reducing our wages." The employer re- 
plies, "We don't want to reduce your wages ; we are 
trying to increase your wages." That is given to us 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 



129 



on every hand, "we want to increase your wages." 
Then why not increase our wages on the day basis 
and stimulate us in this way? Why not stimulate us 
by saying, "We will increase your wages ten per cent, 
and allow you to continue working on the day basis, 
with the hope that increased wages and better con- 
ditions will stimulate you to greater things." We 
believe that with this incentive and proper superin- 
tendency of the works there would be no necessity 
for piece-work, premium plan, or any other system 
that is obnoxious to the men in order that we may 
be capable of competing for the world's markets. 

More strikes have resulted in this country against 
3 he introduction of the piece-work and similar sys- 
tems than, perhaps, against any other one system in 
the history of our country. Mr. Mosely said in his 
address yesterday afternoon that he believed that we 
had to a greater extent piece-work in this country 
than existed in Great Britain. I desire to say that 
Mr. Mosely is mistaken. Piece-work, premium sys- 
tem and other plans outside of the day system do 
not exist to nearly so great an extent in this country 
as in Great Britain. In all the great railroad systems 
throughout North America there are not over three 
systems where piece-work is in operation, and there 
are but two that I know of where the system has 
been in operation for a number of years. The Bur- 
lington system in the West and the Pennsylvania 
system in the East are two railroad corporations 
where piece-work in the mechanical departments 
is being operated. Just before leaving my office in 
Washington on Saturday, I received a telegram from 



1 30 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

the men in the West, who are working under the 
piece-work system, and who, by the way, are unor- 
ganized, requesting that assistance be sent at once 
to bring about the organization of the road, in order 
that an effort might be made to abolish the piece- 
work system. They said, "Send some one to help 
us; help us to straighten this matter out; we are 
becoming slaves; our conditions are becoming more 
burdensome; we are employed long hours; produce 
excessively to make the ordinary wages that a few 
years ago we could earn in a much more reasonable 
time and with much less exertion on our part." These 
men are willing to go out on strike in midwinter as a 
protest against the system under which they have 
been employed for several years. When men pro- 
test to this extent who have worked under a system 
of that kind for a long time, arid when that protest 
is made in midwinter and they are willing to go on 
strike for the abolition of the system, there is some- 
thing back of it. There is something else other than 
the fact that the men may have an opportunity of 
earning a few dollars extra per year. It is because 
the system has proven unprofitable to them; it is 
because the system under which they have been 
working has become burdensome. 

In my own personal experience of twenty years in 
the machine shops, I have seen piece-work, premium 
plan, and other so-called methods of increasing the 
output tried. I recall in one instance in a shop where 
I was at work the men were asked to take certain 
pieces of work on the piece plan. They were given a 
guarantee that the prices would not be cut for a 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. I3 i 

year. "We will not interfere with you," said the firm, 
"for one year; go ahead; make all you can; any new 
tools you desire to get up let us have your ideas and 
we will have them made for you." The men, being 
unfamiliar with the piece-work and its inevitable re- 
sults, believing that it was an opportunity of a life- 
time, accepted it. They pitched in and worked and 
worked and worked. I remember very well those 
who spent the noon hour chatting over their lunch 
began to separate from each other. There was no 
more shaking of hands and bidding each other the 
time of day. It was now a case of hustle, hustle, 
hustle. In fact, the opportunity for attending to 
nature was neglected during working hours. There 
were no more discussions as to measures pending in 
Congress ; whether the President of the United States 
was doing right or wrong; whether the Congressman 
representing the district was the proper man or not; 
what the United States Senators were doing; ques- 
tions of legislation affecting the welfare of all the 
people had no concern with the piece-workers any 
more They were being taught only to work and 
hustle; you could see them watching as a cat would 
a mouse the time the engines would start, so that the 
machines would be put in operation. Men's avarice 
for the almighty dollar was cultivated to such an 
extent that in less than three weeks the shop that 
had been a home-like place, relations pleasant, men 
working as brothers, all interested in the advance- 
ment of each other, became a hell on earth. A strike 
resulted; they never had one before; they have 
never had one since; piece-work is abolished. Not- 



l 3 2 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

withstanding the abolition of the system this shop 
has grown to be one of the great manufacturing insti- 
t ions of our country; no piece-work, premium plan 
or its like has entered its doors since that time. And 
so it can be cited in thousands of other cases where 
the piece-work, premium or other plan has been in- 
troduced. They have been driven out because of the 
unholy state of affairs under which men were com- 
pelled to work, notwithstanding the apparently 
splendid inducements held out for them by their 
employers. 

Mr. Halsey tells us that about forty-five firms in 
the United States and Great Britain are operating 
their plants under the premium plan. What per 
cent, is this of the total number of manufactories 
in the United States and Great Britain? Just 
think of it! The per cent, is so small that it is 
scarcely noticeable, and yet Mr. Halsey has been 
working upon his plan, to my knowledge, several 
years. How many firms in the United States are 
operating their plants on the piece-work system? 
The number is so small as compared with the total 
number to be scarcely recognized. More firms have 
given up the plan and gone back to the day work 
system than are now working under the piece sys- 
tem or premium plan. How many firms are work- 
ing the gang-profit-sharing system? You can 
probably count them on your finger ends. Mr. 
Barnes mentioned yesterday a condition existing 
in one of the works that he had visited which was 
deplorable. I have not spoken to Mr. Barnes since 
he has been in this country, but I will wager any- 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 133 

thing that I can name the works he had in mind. 
It is the Baldwin Locomotive Works of Philadelphia. 
Might I ask him if this is correct? 

Mr. O'Connell: I knew it. We can spot them 
wherever they are located. We know them. We 
can lay our fingers on the piece-work shops every 
time. Of course there are exceptions to the con- 
ditions existing in the piece-work shops. Here and 
there we find an institution where the tendency is 
to treat the workmen fairly. I have in mind a model 
institution — the president of the company is at- 
tending this meeting — the system of piece-work is 
in operation in Mr. Patterson's factory, and I have 
every reason to believe that he has always en- 
deavored to treat his workmen fairly because he is 
interested in the happiness of his employees; but 
as a general rule, when the employer comes to us and 
says he is desirous of raising our wages and intends 
to introduce some plan whereby the output may be 
increased we are always skeptical, for fear the in- 
tention is to introduce the piece-work system, be- 
cause we have suffered much under its baneful in- 
fluences upon the various trades and the inevitable 
conditions following the introduction of this or 
similar systems. 

Much has been said about the restriction of output. 
It is intimated that organized labor stands for re- 
striction, or in other words, that we say to our mem- 
bers you must only do so much work per day. This 
opinion is absolutely without foundation. They say 
we won't allow our members to run more than one 
machine; that we won't permit them to work under 



134 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

the piece-work system, hence we restrict the output. 
Then again we are charged with limiting or restrict- 
ing the number of apprentices. Now the fact is 
that these restrictions are to a great extent imagi- 
nary from the standpoint of the employer, and es- 
pecially do they exist only in the mind of the theorist 
or the men who, with a lead pencil, who have no 
practical knowledge, would lay down a policy for the 
employer and the employee to work under. These 
professional theorists make a good living by going 
around the country injecting their peculiar ideas 
and theories into the minds of the employer, and in 
a large degree prejudicing the minds of the manu- 
facturers against their workmen, constantly setting 
forth that the workmen are restricting the output, 
hence not performing their proper duty. Mr. Hal- 
sey says to the manufacturer: "Introduce my 
system into your factory and you will largely in- 
crease your output, reduce the cost of operating 
your plant, and in a small degree raise the total 
earnings of your employees. ' ' The piece-work ad- 
vocate tells the employer that he is being fleeced; 
that his workmen are not producing as they should, 
and by the introduction of the piece-work system 
the full capacity of the plant could be procured. 

Organized labor restricts only when it is found 
that the employer is arbitrary and will not meet the 
workmen or their representatives with a view to 
entering into a joint agreement. We believe if the 
employer proposes to change the day system of em- 
ployment to some other system, that the workman 
has a perfect right to say whether he shall work 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 



135 



under such a system or not. We believe also if the 
employer introduces modern machinery and insists 
on the workmen operating a large number of ma- 
chines, that the employees have a right to say how 
many machines they shall operate. We believe 
also that we have a right to say to the employer 
that only a reasonable number of apprentices shall 
be employed in any factory as compared to the total 
number of journeymen employed, in order that such 
apprentices may have a fair and reasonable oppor- 
tunity to learn the trade. 

I have the honor to represent a large organization 
of highly skilled workmen. This organization says 
to its members, You cannot work piece-work. We 
won't allow our members to introduce piece-work 
in a factory where the practice has not been in 
vogue. We say to our members you can work under 
the system for the time being in a factory where it 
does exist because it is already there, but when you 
come into our Association you must not introduce 
the system. This applies alike to other systems, 
namely, premium plans, gang-profit-sharing, or the 
contract system. We also say to our members, 
"You can operate a number of machines of certain 
classes, but there are other classes of machines 
of which you can operate only one." There are 
thousands of machines in the factories and work- 
shops of the United States where the men are oper- 
ating more than one of them. This is certainly not 
a restriction on output. Automatic machines of 
every character have been introduced in the work- 
shops of this country and there has been no re- 



I3 6 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

striction placed upon them at all. On the contrary 
we have encouraged, by our own genius and in- 
vention, the modern and improved up-to-date 
machine, in order that we maybe able to compete 
for the markets of the world. 

The mere fact that labor dares to question certain 
things in the modern factories of to-day is looked 
upon at once by the employer and the professional 
systematizer as a restriction on output, but if it 
were not for the position taken by organized labor 
the men and women who are the bone and sinew of 
our country would be walking the streets and the 
boys and girls would be performing the work in the 
factories, workshops, etc. 

If you want evidence of the non-restriction of out- 
put go into the shoe factory. Where a few years 
ago a shoemaker was employed now he is only part 
of a shoemaker, and to a very large degree men 
have disappeared from the shoe factory. Women, 
boys and girls are found there now. Go into a nail 
factory, where a few years ago nails were made by 
hand. To-day they are forged by a machine faster 
than the human mind can count them. Does this 
look like restriction of output? Many of these 
machines are operated by little boys and girls, and 
in many of the factories the larger number of ma- 
chines are being operated by girls. There has been 
no effort towards restriction of the machines. There 
may have been an isolated case, but as a whole organ- 
ized labor stands for improved, modern and up-to- 
date appliances for operating the American work- 
shops. 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 137 

We believe that with a proper superintend ency 
of the factory, the proper treatment of the employees 
and the introduction of a plan such as that outlined 
by Mr. Carpenter, representing the labor depart- 
ment of the National Cash Register Company's works, 
where grievances can be amicably and speedily ad- 
justed, that it is possible under the day plan to se- 
cure for such an institution an output equal in 
quantity to any plant where the piece-work or 
similar system may be in operation ; while in quality 
the work would exceed to a large degree that pro- 
duced in the piece-work factory. 

A constant effort, apparently, on the part of cer- 
tain manufacturers and certain professional theor- 
ists to poison the minds of the employers against 
organized labor and especially against the leaders 
of organized labor, is a direct cause for many of the 
complaints heard from the employer's side of this 
question. When an employer can only see through 
one glass, and that glass indicates increased output, 
regardless of the conditions under which this end may 
be secured, he will unquestionably find himself 
sooner or later involved in some sort of a tangle with 
his employees. The workman knows full well 
that the employer of labor is not stating facts when 
he says we are going to introduce the piece-work 
or premium plan in order that you may have a bet- 
ter opportunity of increasing your income. The 
workman knows full well that this proposition has 
a very large string attached to it, and that when he 
has worked himself up to the highest proficiency 
the goal at which he is aiming is always moved fur- 



138 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

ther back and he must start over, and finally the 
post is moved so far that he is compelled to give up 
his position in disgust. He has become discouraged, 
and those who come after him usually find that the 
pace-maker has established an output which they 
must come up to or their services are not required. 

We are told that if we will pitch in, work, hustle 
and increase the output, the prices will not be cut 
and that we will be fairly dealt with; but I chal- 
lenge any one in this room to cite a case where piece- 
work, premium plan or other systems have been 
introduced that the prices have not been cut. I 
have traveled all over this country and portions of 
Europe; have interviewed men, not only in my own 
trade but other walks of life, who have worked under 
the piece-work and similar systems. I have yet to 
find one who has worked under such a system for a 
reasonable length of time who has not the same 
complaint to offer — the prices have been cut. You 
say, make a contract for a year or five years. This 
would not cure the evil, for if the employer and the 
employees entered into a contract for five years and 
the employees had increased the output and thus 
temporarily increased their wages, there are em- 
ployers who would, if they could not violate their 
contract in any other way, close down their works 
indefinitely, pay off all the employees, and at an 
early date reorganize the factory and open it up 
again to new employees. There can be no fairness 
under the systems in question until such time as the 
employers and employees are thoroughly organized, 
as was cited by Mr. Commons in his paper this 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 139 

morning. Then both sides will recognize the rights 
of the other, and so-called restrictions of output 
will disappear, be cause the two organizations will 
meet in conference and adjust their differences. 
The rights of the weak as well as the strong work- 
man will receive consideration. The pace-maker 
will disappear; the industrious workman will be 
used as an example for others to imitate, and the 
day of pitting the strong, energetic, active man 
against the less fortunate will be a thing of the past. 
It is said by many employers who desire to intro- 
duce the piece-work and other systems, "We are not 
going to base the price upon the speediest workman 
in our factory, but we will take an average." That 
is all very well in theory, but history proves to us 
that such is not the case, and it is not reasonable to 
suppose that such a plan would be put into oper- 
ation. This is a cold, business world. The manu- 
facturing institutions of our country are combining 
each day; are now being controlled by Boards of 
Directors; individual owners are passing away. 
What peculiar interest has a Board of Directors 
in the every-day life of the workmen employed in 
their factories except to secure the highest possible 
output at the lowest possible cost? They cry out 
for dividends. They know not the workmen. 
They care less who they are; how they live; where 
they live. This does not interest them at all so 
long as profits and dividends are being declared. 

Supposing I had a piece-work job and had in- 
creased the output, thus temporarily increasing 
my wages, and other workmen in the factory were 



140 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 



not so fortunate, many things probably militating 
against their success. When the directory of the 
company has its meeting, carefully scrutinizing the 
workings of the factory, and finds that one or more 
men have made more money than others, they say 
at once, "Get rid of the men who cannot produce 
as much as the best man you have." By these 
means you reduce the fixed cost of the plant. The 
weaker and less speedy men are discharged; others 
are taken on and they are told that "John Brown 
or Bill Smith is capable of producing so much or 
turning out so many pieces of work per day; you are 
expected to do the same." Instead of the average 
day's work becoming the standard the pace-maker 
has established the living rate and set the standard 
of life for all the workmen in the factory. Or- 
ganized labor says this condition is absolutely 
wrong, for it has a tendency to lower the standard 
of manhood, to lower wages, and to cultivate man's 
most selfish nature, thus reducing the standard of 
citizenship, and as a consequence the markets of 
the world gradually slip away from us. Organized 
labor stands for just the opposite — higher manhood; 
higher living; cultivation of all that is good in man; 
getting more to-day and more to-morrow, and thus 
elevating the American citizen to the highest stand- 
ard of ability as a mechanic; capable of competing 
for the markets of the world; enjoying the shortest 
possible work day with the highest possible wages 
paid in any of the civilized countries of the world. 

The statement that organized labor interferes 
with the rights of capital is absurd. It is nonsense, 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 141 

and the man who makes these statements is ignor- 
ant of the workings of organized labor; knows not 
of what he speaks. Organized labor aims to bring 
the employer and employee closer together. This 
is the work of the leaders; instead of advocating 
strikes and boycotts the leader's time is occupied 
to a very great degree in avoiding these very things 
which we are charged with doing. Organized 
labor believes in meeting capital more than half 
way; sitting down at the round table and thresh- 
ing out any differences that may exist, but the 
trouble has been, the seed of hatred towards the 
leaders of organized labor was sown in the early 
history of our country, and there are yet a few em- 
ployers who have refused to modernize their busi- 
ness or their methods of treating with their workmen. 
But the energetic, up-to-date employer appreciates 
the fact that we are living in a rapid age; that the 
industrial conditions have been revolutionized; that 
organized labor is here to stay and that it is best 
to meet the workmen in their joint capacity, or the 
representatives of organized labor, with a view of 
bringing about an amicable adjustment of all differ- 
ences that may exist and in the end entering into 
a joint agreement whereby employer and employee 
will feel interested in the success of each other. 

The National Civic Federation is doing its part 
in this d rection. Employer and employee have 
been brought together; disputes have been adjusted 
when they existed, and disputes have been avoided 
by mutual conferences and mutual agreements. I 
believe that the employer and employee alike are 



1 42 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

beginning to have more respect for the views of 
each other than in former days. As an evidence 
of this, our meeting here to-day. We have with 
us men engaged in the various walks of life, pro- 
fessors, business men, laboring men; all respecting 
the opinions of the other ; realizing we are all human ; 
liable to error; yet I believe conceding that we are 
all aiming in one direction, that of bringing peace 
and prosperity to all of God's common family. 
All are doing their part towards furnishing some- 
thing that will make the sleigh run a little more 
smoothly over the rough and rocky road. 

My friends, I do not desire to take up any more 
of your valuable time, only to say on behalf of the 
men that I have the honor of representing, who 
are constantly confronted with the piece-work 
and other similar systems, that as a whole we are in 
opposition to those practices, not because we are 
desirous in any manner of limiting the capacity 
of the workshops of our country, but because we 
believe they are wrong in principle, wrong in prac- 
tice; and that the end to which we are all desirous 
of reaching will not be secured through the introduc- 
tion of systems which have proven to us in the past 
to mean a decreased wage, and a degraded manhood. 

I believe we will yet strike a happy medium of all 
our complaints, where charges of injustice will not 
be held against either side; the professional ad- 
vocate of piece-work, premium-plan and similar 
plans will disappear, and the employer and em- 
ployee will sit down together and in their own way 
solve the problems of production, hours and wages. 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 



143 



The Chairman: Continuing the discussion along 
this line, I will now introduce Mr. Henry White, 
Secretary of the United Garment Workers of Amer- 
ica. 

Mr. Mosely: May I put one question before this 
is taken up? 

The Chairman: Certainly. I might have said 
if any of these speeches bring up any questions on 
which discussion is desired, we will be glad to hear 
from anybody. 

Mr. Mosely: You just now referred to a remark 
made by Mr. Barnes in regard to a certain factory. 
I was very much struck by those remarks of Mr. 
Barnes yesterday, because he referred to the factory 
as being unfit really for men to work in, where the 
sanitary conditions were bad, and where everything 
was not at all of the idealistic character that both 
employers and employees like. He did not men- 
tion the name of the factory, but you have men- 
tioned the name of a factory which I have not 
heard either confirmed or contradicted. Now I should 
like to say 

Mr. James O'Connell: I asked Mr. Barnes to 
confirm it and he nodded his head. 

Mr. Mosely: If Mr. Barnes has confirmed it, 
that settles the question. I have been through 
that factory myself upon more than one occasion; 
more than twice. I do not pretend to be an expert, 
to say as to whether that factory is being run under 
conditions, from a machinist's point of view, of 
the very best, but what has struck me is this, that 
that shop is non-union. It employs a very large 



14 4 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

number of men. The union has never come in 
there, and the men apparently are all satisfied 
and never have struck. Now if those conditions 
are so extremely bad, why is it that year after year 
those men do not strike? That seems to me to be 
rather a pertinent point in connection with this 
question. 

Mr. O'Connell: Mr. Mosely, I would say it is 
true that the non-union men at the Baldwin Loco- 
motive Works have never struck, as far as I know. 
But in the Baldwin Locomotive shops — I don't 
wish to specify them in particular — but in that 
factory they have a system somewhat different 
from that in force in most other factories, and that 
is the contract sharing system. One man takes 
a contract for building a certain portion of a loco- 
motive. He pays those who work on that par- 
ticular job, himself. He takes a contract, say, for 
putting a cylinder on locomotives; $100 for put- 
ting every cylinder on a locomotive. If he can get 
men to work for him for fifty cents a day, if he can 
drive them and can sweat them as much as he can, 
the more he makes. That is the system. That 
is the sweating system there; they sweat the men. 
They don't use a small hammer any more in Bald- 
win's; you have got to use a double handled ham- 
mer there. (Cries of hear, hear.) 

Dr Wm. S. Rainsford (Rector of St. George's 
Episcopal Church): Apropos of one thing you said 
about limiting the apprentices, now isn't it true 
that if you start on a theory in which you say the 
number of apprentices in a certain concern should 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 145 

be limited, because if you don't limit them you 
practically disappoint the hopes of these young 
men as they go towards manhood, you rele- 
gate to yourselves a knowledge of the conditions 
in that concern and of the whole country at large, 
which is a very difficult thing to assume? You 
gauge not only the advance individually in one 
plant, but all over the United States. And let 
me add to my question one more. I am aware, 
and, of course, I suppose you are, that year after 
year there is a very large increase in the number of 
trained workmen who come from Scandinavia and 
from Germany — admirable workmen they are — 
who come to New York, and, escaping the contract 
labor law, get work in New York, and for several 
large firms, which are known to many gentlemen, 
no doubt, in this room — get excellent wages; in 
some cases, get an increase on union wages; spend 
three, four, five or six months in this country, and 
go back to the Old Country to spend the money 
they have liberally made here, proving thereby, 
that the demand for skilled labor is so great to-day 
in the great centers, that the very largest firms are 
not able to meet it and are filling out and adding 
to the number of thoroughly skilled laborers by 
drawing largely on Scandinavia and Germany, 
many of whom are coming over and staying five or 
six months, and then going back with their earnings. 
Now I think that is a question that demonstrates 
what is radically a wrong and mistaken idea, of 
limiting the education of the youth of the land. 
Mr. O'Connell: Now I desire to say in answer 



i 4 6 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

to that question, simply to ask him this: Isn't that 
an ideal situation for your German friends to find 
here, rather than to come here and find the trade 
crowded with boys, and not be able to get work 
at all? I mean to say, if you convey the idea that 
by limitation of apprentices in trade — and I speak 
only of my trade; other trades have different num- 
bers employed — but if by limitation, if you put it 
that way, isn't it best to have the German machin- 
ist come here and get $20 a week for working 54 
hours — isn't that an ideal state to have exist here 
rather than to have him come here and only get $10 a 
week? 

Dr. Rainsford: That does not exactly fit the 
question. That man's coming to this country and 
staying four or five or six months, and going back 
to the Old Country to spend his earnings, does not 
help the interests of this country, or build up the 
great democratic principles that exist here. I do 
not want to be misunderstood, but when a union 
takes a step like that they are going against the 
everlasting laws, and are bound to be beaten. You 
cannot limit the education and opportunities of 
the young of this land. The intention doubtless 
is absolutely good, but we do not recognize the 
place we hold between the two conditions, and we 
do not recognize the fact that it is not right in prin- 
ciple to limit the opportunities for education of our 
young men. 

Mr. O'Connell: The gentleman speaks of demo- 
cratic principles; that is a very beautiful sentiment 
and always strikes a responsive chord, and I ap- 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 



147 



predate that. But there is also the hard business 
side of this question which has got to be looked at, 
and we have passed through the hard knocks in 
this country and got up to that position where your 
German friend can come over here and work under 
fair conditions, and it is by hard knocks that we 
have come to the conclusion that there should be 
a certain reasonable limitation upon apprentices 
in this country in every trade. 

A Delegate: I do not see that Mr. Mosely's 
question has been answered as yet. 

Mr. O'Connell: Mr. Mosely did not continue 
to ask that question, because he did not recognize 
that Mr. Barnes had confirmed my statements. 

Mr. Barnes: I am rather sorry I am to be forced 
into that question and would much rather have 
my observations taken in the abstract, or as not 
referring to any particular shop. I think that is 
only fair to every shop in this country, that my 
remarks should not be taken as referring to any 
particular shop. 

Mr. Gompers: If I may be permitted I should 
like to take a moment or two to say something in 
connection with the questions propounded by Mr. 
Rainsford. I suppose in desiring to speak of a 
higher position my friend Mr. O'Connell did not 
take cognizance of the question put, and did not 
answer it. 

In regard to the matter of apprentices, this must 
be taken into consideration; that is, that the op- 
portunities for apprenticeship have gone in Amer- 
ican industries, and when we talk of the oppor- 



i 4 8 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

tunities for a boy to learn a trade, the opportunity 
of an education in the trade, we are talking of the 
past. We are not taking cognizance of the fact 
that the division and sub-division and classification 
of labor has eliminated the question of apprentice- 
ship, the question of apprentices learning a trade. 
What the boys now learn is a very infinitesimal 
part of a trade. The attempt to have an ap- 
apprenticeship system is simply another name for 
the wholesale introduction into one or two or a 
few establishments of a large number of boys, elim- 
inating the question of wages to adult labor, the 
employment of one as an expert, and the plant of 
which is turned into a nursery. This must be 
borne in mind, that it is not a question of limiting 
the number of apprentices for a trade, but 
it is the limitation or the regulation of the number 
of apprentices in each particular establishment of a 
trade. While in the. aggregate that may seem a 
limitation, yet in any particular trade or classifi- 
cation of trade in which there would be any election 
the employer could, and many of them would, and 
many of them do, introduce into their plants a 
system of bringing an immense number of boys in 
the plant, and with the superintendency of an 
expert the plant is enabled to get out some sort of an 
output, some sort of a product, which is brought into 
competition with the fairer manufacturers in that 
industry, and tends to force down the selling price, 
and consequently the wages received by the men. 
It is because of this immense classification and 
division and sub-division of labor that has gone on 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. i 49 

in our country that the boys have no opportunity 
to learn a trade and the companies and manufacturers 
and employers find it necessary to send over to 
European countries to send some of their skilled 
workmen here. The great classification and divis- 
ion and sub-division have not gone on in those 
countries to the same extent that they have in our 
own. (Cries of Hear, Hear, and applause.) 

Mr. John Martin: Would Mr. Gompers therefore 
support trade schools, which would give oppor- 
tunities for the boys to learn the trade, under, of 
course, some regulation by the trades unions to 
prevent excessive filling up of a particular trade? 

Mr. Gompers : I should be opposed to trade schools. 
I should favor and do favor manual training schools. 
The trade schools have demonstrated themselves 
to be the hothouse of strike breakers in the United 
States. The training schools have given the young 
men of our country a knowledge of the use of tools, 
making them more easily adapted to learning the 
different brandies of any particular trade. 

Mr. Mosely: Mr. Chairman, may I be allowed to 
put a question to Mr. Gompers as representing 
labor? I have not heard any reply made to my 
question. I have heard a description of men working 
under conditions that are unfit for human beings — 
a very large number of men working in perhaps 
almost the largest of any factory in the United 
States. Why is it that these men are apparently 
satisfied with their condition, and why is it that 
the union has not come in there, and why is it that 
year after year has gone by and there has been no 



IS© 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 



trouble and no strikes? And these men I under- 
stand uniformly earn more than union laborers. 

Mr. O'Connell: I have but one thing to say to 
Mr. Mosely, and that is, he is absolutely mistaken 
in his statement that the wages at Baldwin's Loco- 
motive Shops are larger than union wages. He is 
absolutely mistaken in that statement; absolutely 
incorrect. 

Mr. Gompers: Mr. Mosely asked me this question, 
see if I comprehend it: How does it happen that 
if such unfair and improper conditions obtain in 
that particular establishment to which reference 
has been made, that no protest has been made by 
the men? Unionism has not taken root there. No 
strike of any character. My answer is this: That 
in the whole history of the world you will find that 
the people whose conditions are the worst are those 
the least capable of resistance and protest, and that 
is equally true in industry as it is in political life. 

A Delegate : Cannot those men strike? 

Mr. Gompers: There are in that establishment 
to which reference has been made small captains of 
industry. Men who are the employers of five or 
six other men, and each man is a little minimized 
captain of industry himself. 

The Delegate: Well, if those men are improperly 
paid why can't they strike against that little cap- 
tain? 

Mr. Gompers: I don't know why they cannot 
strike, except they may have'had all ambition crushed 
out of them. 

Mr. Mosely: I wish now to make one statement 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. i 5 i 

in regard to the Baldwin Locomotive Works. I 
am sorry their name has been called into question, 
but I think it only fair to the Baldwin Locomotive 
Works to make this statement: I saw one of the 
members of the firm and I asked him what per- 
centage of union men were there. He said the 
percentage was very small, practically none; perhaps 
one in a hundred or over. I said how do you account 
for the fact that you have never had trouble in this 
factory? He said, "Because we are fair to the men 
and the men recognize it." Now I think that is 
a statement that will go a long ways to convince any 
fair minded man. You have been shown the thou- 
sands of men working under conditions that on one 
side it is urged are not human. There is no trouble; 
there are no strikes, and the proprietor of that es- 
tablishment informed me as one who is seeking 
information, it is because the men trust them 
and know they will treat them fairly. 

Mr. Gompers: The people of India do not pro- 
test there, but they are starving by the millions. 

Mr. Hanna: I now have the pleasure of intro- 
ducing Mr. White. 

THE PROBLEMS OF MACHINERY. 

Mr. Henry White (General Secretary of the 
United Garment Workers of America): Mr. Chair- 
man and Gentlemen. — The subject assigned to me 
I approach with considerable misgiving, because the 
problem of machinery involves the entire labor 
question, for it is the complexity of conditions due 
to machinery that has given us the labor problem. 



1 52 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

This age is pre-eminent in mechanical achievement; 
still, many believe that labor saving methods are 
detrimental, that only a few profit by them, to the 
disadvantage of the rest. The strange parodox 
is thus presented of an ingenious and enterprising 
people actually doubting the value of means that 
renders labor more effective and increases human 
capacity. 

The confusion upon this subject is due to the 
difficulty of understanding the workings of our 
complete industrial system, the inability to dis- 
criminate between the benefits society derives from 
labor saving methods, the disturbances they cause, 
and the abuses associated with them. 

The economy of a primitive community that con- 
sumes all it produces is readily understood. It is 
seen how every increase in the productiveness of 
the members adds to the general prosperity, and 
how each one participates in the wealth of the 
whole. If the farmer has abundant crops, the 
tailor, the shoemaker, the blacksmith, obtain cheaper 
food. If the other workers through improved tools 
are enabled to produce cheaper, the farmer, in- 
cluding the workmen, receive cheaper goods or 
better service. The purchasing power of money 
is thus increased, and each one is enabled to buy 
more with his earnings and indulge in new com- 
forts. The new occupations that in turn open up 
give employment to those who happen to be dis- 
placed by improved machinery. This result is 
dependent upon a wholesome (not ruinous), 
competition being maintained, so that profits will 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 153 

be kept down to a minimum, and provided the 
wage earners are able to command a just compen- 
sation, and prevent wages from being decreased 
whenever the cost of living is lessened. The prin- 
ciple of co-operation that underlies private enter- 
prise is thus evident. It works out in a rough way, 
and more perfectly as the defects of the system 
are corrected. In a more developed society with 
its highly specialized and therefore more efficient 
methods, only a part of the plan is observed at a 
time, and its intricate operations become confusing. 
Suddenly the laws that work so beneficently in 
the small community appear to be reversed. Labor 
saving methods become a calamity, because the 
effect is to interfere with present pursuits and 
deprive some of their accustomed means of a liveli- 
hood, to render useless skill acquired after a life- 
long training. The benefits all seem to accrue to 
the person who first uses an invention, while the 
ones displaced are apparently shut out of the in- 
dustrial system. It is not noticed how they are 
gradually absorbed into other channels of employ- 
ment that open vp as the cost of production is de- 
creased If such were not the case, the whole in- 
dustrial mechanism would soon come to a standstill, 
considering the progress of inventions supplemented 
by the army of aliens that arrive yearly and the 
increasing proportion of women breadwinners. An 
adjustment coincident with the displacement must 
evidently take place somewhere or the number of 
unemployed would be appalling. This is the pith 
of the problem. The example cited of the prim- 



i 5 4 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

itive community explains how by lessening the cost 
of commodities the spending capacity of the con- 
sumer is increased, and in that way industry ex- 
pands. The immigrants and the women introduced 
into the factory become in turn buyers, and hence 
create a demand for goods that results in the em- 
ployment of as many as they have displaced. The 
evil of immigration is not that the aliens take the 
places of native laborers, but rather is due to the 
crowding into the most available occupations that 
offer them the means to temporarily subsist; to 
their lower standards of living and general helpless- 
ness, all of which is taken advantage of, to the detri- 
ment of those who are striving to uplift the stand- 
ards. The same applies in a degree to the women 
partly dependent upon their earnings, and who do 
not possess the ability of the men to act in concert, 
and therefore are made to accept less than the 
men for the same work. 

When the sewing machine was introduced by 
Howe in 1846, I have heard old tailors say that 
the direst consequences were predicted, but instead 
of depriving them of work, the machine was the 
means of augmenting it. The cost of clothing 
having been lessened, the consumption was vastly 
increased. It is estimated to-day that the average 
person wears two suits a year, while formerly, when 
made by hand, an inferior suit had to last a year, 
and often had to tide over another year by revers- 
ing the cloth. The well known evils of clothing 
manufacture are not the result of the machine, but are 
due to a pernicious system of work. It is sought to 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 



155 



remedy this condition by manufacturing upon a 
large scale. The substitution of electricity for horse 
power in the operation of street cars has immensely 
expanded this service. Although an electric car 
goes twice as fast as the horse car and carries at 
least twice as many passengers, instead of decreasing 
the number of employees, many times that number 
are employed. The patronage simply increases as 
the facilities for travel are improved. 

There are also many undertakings that could not 
be carried on at all were it not for improved ma- 
chinery, as, for instance, great works of construc- 
tion, such as tunnels and bridges, railroads and 
steamships, and the erection of large buildings. As 
self-evident as this seems when attention is called 
to it, it is lost sight of when discussing the prob- 
lem. The temporary loss of employment by some 
is alone considered, while the compensating features 
pass unnoticed. 

There are some occupations, however, where the 
perfection of machinery proceeds faster than the 
increased consumption, and the effect, therefore, 
is constantly to decrease the number of workmen 
required. In such cases it is far better for the work- 
men to face the stern realities of the situation, 
and make up their minds that some will have to 
relieve the pressure by seeking employment else- 
where, than by intensifying the distress by keeping 
in the trade more than it will sustain, otherwise 
wages will tend to lower, or be prevented from 
rising and work will become more unsteady. Mr. Gom- 
pers has explained how this situation can be best 



156 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

met — by giving our young men a general training 
in mechanics, so that they can quickly adapt them- 
selves to the changing occupations. 

Here we touch the vital question of limitation of 
output. The British unions are charged with pur- 
suing the policy of limiting the product of the mem- 
bers as a means of providing work for all. The 
American unions are also charged with the same 
tendency as they gain in power. The answer is 
that the restrictions placed upon the speed of the 
worker are intended to prevent rushing or undue 
haste; that if such was not done the quickest work- 
men would be made to set the pace for the rest, and 
whether the pay be based upon week or piece-work, 
the average wages or prices will be determined by 
what the most rapid workman is able to perform. 
Restrictions imposed for the purpose of correcting 
abuses of that kind are clearly justifiable. There 
is, however, a conviction that the unions go beyond 
that; that the ability to enforce such restraints 
prompts them to go further, and that they actually 
encourage the members to shirk reasonable tasks. 
That is, of course denied, but there is an inducement 
for them to do so, just as there is for manufacturers, 
when the opportunity offers, to create an artificial 
scarcity, or for merchants to sell inferior or adul- 
terated goods. As to whether their action is right, 
whether it is to their best interests, is another 
question. The labor unions stand for high prin- 
ciples, and groups of people or institutions are 
judged by their performances. It is the exalted 
aim of the labor movement that gives it strength 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 157 

and infuses the members with the common 
spirit essential to its success. They are therefore 
expected to be above the considerations that actuate 
others, and they would more firmly establish them- 
selves in the public confidence by taking the broad 
economic ground, instead of being influenced by 
momentary advantages. As they are themselves 
the result of industrial development, they cannot 
afford to stand in its path. 

In England the inclination to limit work is more 
marked than here, because the mechanic is unable 
to adjust himself to varying conditions as readily. 
When he enters a trade, usually that followed by 
his parent, it is with the intention of staying in it 
for life. Here workingmen are more prepared for 
changes, and the division of labor is developed to a 
point that enables them more quickly to accom- 
modate themselves to new environments. 

It is customary in English factories for workmen, 
when there is a shortage, to share the work with one 
another, Where this is done to tide over a slack 
season it is commendable, but where such is a 
permanent condition, the effect is demoralizing. 
The restricting of output, therefore, follows as a 
policy whenever the workmen have the power to 
enforce it. The result is to limit their earning 
capacity and prevent their advancement. How 
much better it would be to insist upon a just share 
of an increasing output? The American unionist 
has progressed to the point of recognizing the futility 
of fighting inventions and has therefore been re- 
signed to them as an unavoidable evil. He does 



i 5 8 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

not as yet appreciate that they should not be op- 
posed, even if that could be done. 

The limitation of apprentices can be defended 
by economic reasons wherever there are enough to 
do the work, as those already in the trade have a 
right to protect their standards from being lowered 
through an influx of other workmen tempted by 
the higher wages, which the former have upheld. 
In conceding this, it follows that if there be more 
workmen than required, the obligation is like- 
wise imposed upon the unions to help the excess 
number find employment somewhere else. If things 
in that respect are permitted to take their course, 
the least competent workmen, by being without 
work, soon accommodate themselves to other em- 
ployment, and in that way the normal level would 
be maintained. One of the good effects of the late 
coal strike was the elimination of the large propor- 
tion of surplus laborers who found themselves else- 
where during the strike, otherwise they would have 
remained a hindrance to the rest in the belief 
that they were destined to eke out a living where 
they were. While such is the conclusion from a 
purely economic point of view, we cannot expect 
the artisan, losing his job through some invention, 
to regard it with the complacency of the student, 
who has in mind the welfare of the whole rather than 
the interests of particular individuals. You can- 
not convince him that industrial harmony and the 
larger interests of his class demand that the super- 
fluous workmen in a trade find work where their 
labor is needed, where they can be of better service 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 159 

to themselves and to society; but an understanding 
of economic laws will help to modify the severity 
of this situation by preparing the workers to 
meet it. The eight hour work-day is advocated 
as a means of curtailing production rather than as 
the normal working time made possible by ma- 
chinery. Such a plea is an argument against ma- 
chinery, and is based upon the false and absurd 
notion that an abundance of wealth is an evil. There 
may be too much of a particular article, but there 
can be no limit to the variety of useful things needed, 
to the resources to be developed, to the new fields 
of enterprise awaiting cultivation. The one essential 
condition is, as I have said, that the purchasing 
power of the average person be sufficient to con- 
sume the bulk of the things produced. 

The workman as a consumer is a very important 
factor in production, as the present industrial order 
is so constituted that its well being is determined 
by the status of the working class. 

The insufficient share of the laborer in the fruits 
of industry is responsible for glutted markets, the 
bane of modern enterprise, and it is hastened by 
machinery. In order to overcome this predicament, 
foreign markets have been relied upon as an outlet 
for the surplus goods. During the early part of 
the factory system in England, when wealth was 
vastly multiplied, foreign markets became her chief 
dependence, because of the impoverished condition 
of her working class, and it was even held by the 
economists of that period that it was unavoidable 
that the workers be reduced to a bare subsistence , so 



i6o INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

as to enable England to sell goods abroad. In that 
case cheapness was obtained by sacrificing the 
worker, and machinery was used to subdue him. 
The stupidity of such a policy became apparent 
in time by the dreadful consequences. That ac- 
counts, in a measure, for the laborer's fear of ma- 
chinery. Under the conditions described anything 
that intensified the struggle between them was rightly 
regarded as an evil. Whatever advantages they 
derived from it as consumers by obtaining cheaper 
products could not compensate for their plight. 
The foreign markets were always inadequate as 
a distributing factor, because of the small purchas- 
ing power of semi or partly civilized people. In 
our case it is estimated that only five per cent, of 
our products are exported. Sound economy, with- 
out considering the humane side, demands that the 
people of a country be capable of consuming what 
it produces, save where things can be made to better 
advantage in one country and sold in another, 
which is simply a method of specializing effort, and 
is equivalent to a mutual exchange. 

Here I touch very closely on the tariff question, 
but I hope my hearers will not be alarmed. I won't 
drift into that subject; I simply want to emphasize 
that the economic advantage derived by division 
of labor and specialized effort should be applied in- 
ternationally as well as locally; that a country which 
by reason of its climate, soil, location and the ap- 
titudes of its people, can produce certain things best, 
should be permitted to do so and exchange them with 
the products of other countries similarily situated. 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 161 

To summarize : Where the laborer can offer 
no resistance and the so-called iron law of wages 
operates to keep him down to the life line, machinery 
adds uncertainty to his other woes. He is, as 
it were, cut out of civilization. Wherever he presses 
upward and secures a larger share of an ever enlarging 
product, machinery becomes an uplifting force. 

The influences that operate in favor of the latter 
are education, which increases the wants of the 
worker; organization, that enables him to participate 
directly in the benefits of machinery, and a better 
conception of the relations between employer and 
employed, that serves to minimize the hardships 
of the industrial strife and tends to promote fair deal- 
ing. With such a tendency the worker is bound 
in time to become reconciled to the machine, and 
instead of fighting it as a curse will welcome it 
as a means that makes possible higher wages with 
shorter hours, while enhancing at the same time the 
purchasing value of money — a three-fold gain — a 
prospect that makes the disadvantages of machinery 
pale in comparison. 

In conclusion: Useless labor cannot be justified, 
or anything that limits or curtails human activity. 
Where labor saving inventions become a means of 
oppression it would be wiser to meet that situation 
with a view of correcting abuses than to deprive our- 
selves of the inestimable advantages they afford. 
Economic efficiency should be our objective point, 
save where it tends to injure the worker, as in the 
case of child labor or the sweating system. Re- 
strictions are commendable that serve to modify 



1 62 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

the harshness of competition, such as factory laws 
and trades union regulations, but, as a policy, ad- 
vancement is in the direction of increased economy. 
Like the mariner in the night, we should be guided 
by this fixed star, instead of varying our course by 
every shifting light that comes into view. (Ap- 
plause.) 



The afternoon session was called to order by the 
Chairman. 

The Chairman : The first speaker this afternoon is 
Professor George Gunton, of the Institute, of Social 
Economics, who will speak upon the eight hour day. 

THE EIGHT HOUR DAY. 

SHORTENING the working day is a necessary 
accompaniment of modern progress. I say 
modern progress because that might not be true of 
all progress. While the essential element in prog- 
ress is the same under all conditions and in all 
states of civilization, the methods and conditions 
which promote progress differ in the different states 
of civilization. Progress is always a change or 
movement towards a more varied experience and 
complex state of living, and finally greater individ- 
uality. The one condition essential to this move- 
ment is opportunity. That is fundamental and 
universal; but opportunity is not always the same. 
What is opportunity in one country or state of 
society may be the reverse in another; yet oppor- 
tunity is always necessary. In some states of so- 
ciety opportunity involves discipline, pressure, al- 
most coercion, in another, repose and social ex- 
perience. For instance, where life is simple the 

163 



i6 4 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE, 

needs are few, the means of satisfying them are too easy 
to stimulate activity, and there is little precision, 
order or discipline. 

This was largely the condition in Europe through- 
out the Middle Ages ; it is characteristic of all periods 
of slavery and serfdom, and largely of hand-labor 
methods of production. This social condition repre- 
sents the same relative degree of civilization, no 
matter in what century it occurs. Russia is in the 
fourteenth century as literally as England was in 
the reign of Edward III. In that period the in- 
fluences which stimulated progress were not so 
much leisure as work. With the growth of industry 
and development of the factory system this condition 
underwent a radical change; the masses became 
important to society and civilization, not merely 
as workers, but also as consumers and citizens. 
Historically, the first phase of progress is the devel- 
opment of the masses into workers; the next is 
their development into consumers and citizens. 
With the dawn of the factory system came this 
second phase of progress. Under modern industry 
with its enormous output, the need of society is 
not so much for more workers as for larger con- 
sumers. 

Besides furnishing the spur to economic order, 
discipline and efficiency, the factory system in its 
later development has brought a democratic ex- 
pansion of political power and representative gov- 
ernment, greater freedom, greater influence of the 
individual citizen, so that society now rests on a 
new economic and political foundation. In the old 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 165 

regime, laborers were needed only to furnish pro- 
ductive power, and the aristocracy furnished the 
government. Under modern industrialism, both 
political and industrial institutions rest upon the 
masses, who were excluded from either economic, 
social or political consideration prior to the nine- 
teenth century. Improved machinery is successful 
only in proportion as it supplies the demands and 
consumption of the masses of laborers. It is what 
the laborers consume in their general daily standard 
of living that furnishes the only reliable foundation 
for the success of the most highly developed methods 
and undertakings in modern industry. As con- 
sumers, therefore, the masses have become the very 
foundation of the modern market. On the political 
side they have become the determining element. 
Prior to the factory system, the opinions of the 
laborers were of no concern. It was of no conse- 
quence what they thought or whether they thought 
at all, and indeed it was regarded as rather better 
if they did not think, because they were not recog- 
nized elements in the political constitution of society. 
They were not consulted, they had no effective way 
of registering their opinions, if they had any, and as 
a matter of fact they had no need of an opinion. 
Their wants were so small, their lives so monotonous, 
that to have the wherewithal to meet the meager 
needs of a circumscribed round of life was all that 
was necessary, just as it is now in many of the less 
progressive countries of the world. But, with the 
growth of industry and rise in the standard of living, 
all this changed. They not only came to be larger 



166 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

consumers, but they came to have opinions and ac- 
quired sufficient power to demand the right of recog- 
nition for those opinions, as a part of the political 
institutions of the time; so that to-day the wage 
workers, the great mass, or as we like to call them, 
"the common people," now furnish both the market 
basis for industrial success and the political basis for 
government. 

Opportunity, therefore, to-day means quite a dif- 
ferent thing from what it did in the fourteenth and 
fifteenth centuries, and in this country from what 
it does in Russia or India or South America. The 
first stage has passed, namely, that of industrial 
discipline. The factory system brought that. It 
brought the whip of economic coercion. It brought 
the pressure of activity or work as a necessary con- 
dition to getting a living. It practically removed 
from the life of the laborers that paternal hand which 
had always been the last resource, first through the 
church in its charity, and then through the state 
in its provisions for pauperism. It said, noiselessly 
but most effectively: You must rest on your own 
foundation; you must be the source of your own 
supply; you must earn your living or not live. This 
was the discipline; it transferred industry from the 
home to the factory; it took the hand laborer out 
of his cottage with his hand loom and spinning wheel 
and put him into the factory and made him a part 
of the great machines, almost as in a tread mill; he 
had to keep time or get hurt. This brought, first 
the orderly industrial habit; then it brought some- 
thing else — repression. As in so many instances 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 167 

in history, what was at first a necessity ultimately 
became oppression. The free towns, in the Middle 
Ages, were the very essence of freedom, and without 
them modern civilization probably could not have 
come, certainly would not have come the way it 
did and when it did; but the usefulness and special 
function, as it were, of the free towns disappeared 
when they had produced a certain degree of progress. 
After that, they became an oppression. They were 
at first the protectors of freedom and of the right to 
work and to enjoy the results of production, but they 
finally became a paternal, repressive dictator of 
what should and should not be done. The very 
elements that were at first protective became repres- 
sive paternalism, not because the power had changed, 
but because the progress of the people had gone be- 
yond the stage of needing the same functions per- 
formed, and the towns continued to do what they 
had at first done after that became unnecessary. 

It is very much like the paternal authority with 
the child. That is very important at a certain stage, 
but then there comes a stage when it ceases to be 
either important or beneficial. Paternal authority 
and chastisement may be wholesome at ten, but it 
may be very unnecessary at twenty, and may pro- 
duce the directly opposite result. That is because 
it is performing a function that has ceased to be 
necessary. 

This is exactly true of the disciplinary influences 
of industry. Under the factory system, that which 
was at first useful came to be repressive coercion. 
The employer still thought of the laborer simply 



168 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

as a workman, only as so much of a machine, and 
consequently the thing to do was to make him work 
as long and as hard and for as little as possible. 
Hence we find in the early stages that fourteen to 
sixteen hours' work for a bare existence was the 
rule, with children working until they fell asleep; 
and these conditions began to produce numerous 
diseases, individual deformities, and finally led to 
many social vices. This was because the methods 
of the Middle Ages had outlived their usefulness. 

Opportunity, in the twentieth century, calls for 
an entirely different policy; something quite unlike 
what was opportunity from the thirteenth to the 
eighteenth centuries. Then, opportunity was to 
be compelled to work; now, opportunity requires 
leisure. This is necessary because of the radical 
change in the relation of the workers to civilization, 
to which I have referred. 

Under ordinary conditions, the first and prime 
necessity is an increased market. That underlies 
all else in modern society. It is the result of the 
last century's progress. If anything should occur 
which would reduce the consumption of factory 
goods by fifty per cent., modern progress would 
be turned into chaos, progress entirely arrested, 
and society would become demoralized. The whole 
modern structure of industrial and social civilization 
finally rests upon the permanent, daily, habitual 
consumption of the products of modern industry — 
not by the owners of stock in the large corporations, 
not by the rich who can ride in their carriages, not 
by the aristocracy of the world, not by those who 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 169 

can pay high prices for point lace and hand-made 
products — but it rests upon the normal consump- 
tion of these who work for a living and consume 
the machine-made products of the world. 

First of all, then, it is as consumers that the la- 
borers are now important to civilization. They are 
not so important as individual workers, they are 
not so important as handi-craftsmen ; invention, 
machinery and the harnessing of the forces of nature 
are the great forces which are bringing the increase 
in the world's production of wealth. The pro- 
duction goes on, and it will go on; the ingenious 
devices have come and will continue to come just 
as fast as the opportunity for their profitable use 
is assured. It is a mistake, therefore, to rest the 
considerations of the welfare of society upon the 
capacity of the laborer as an inidvidual producer. 
That was once true, but it is no longer true, at 
least in the modern industrial countries. The 
laborer's importance now is, I repeat, as a con- 
sumer. That means as a social factor, not as a 
physical force. This fact recognized, the impor- 
tant question that presents itself is how to expand 
the laborer as a consumer. 

In another phase of the matter, it has now be- 
come true that our societary institutions depend 
on the laborer's growth as a citizen. Civilization 
is practically in the laborer's hands. Whether 
we shall have this form of government or that; 
whether we shall have democracy or despotism; 
whether we shall have intelligent and honest gov- 
ernment or corruption and jobbery; whether we 



170 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

shall have political cleanliness or merely party- 
demagogy as the moving force in our public policy, 
depends upon the intelligence and social character 
of the masses. It does not depend any longer upon 
the opinions of the well-to-do. It depends upon 
convincing the masses of the wisdom of this or that 
policy. Now, their capacity for intelligent con- 
ceptions and convictions, the understanding of the 
influence of this or that public policy, depends upon 
social development. It depends upon the growth 
of character, the capacity for forming and having 
intelligent opinions upon public affairs. 

This requires, just as any other development re- 
quires, opportunity; but the opportunity now must 
be of an entirely different character from what was 
necessary in the Middle Ages or from that which is 
necessary now in Asia, Africa, Russia or South 
America. In this country the opportunity for 
growth in these two lines, as consumers and citizens, 
requires first of all release from the excessive pres- 
sure upon the nervous and physical energies that 
the factory system has developed. Opportunity 
now means leisure, more time for touch with the 
educational, socializing and civilizing elements in 
society. 

There is only one way at present to increase the 
consumption of the laborer. I can imagine some- 
body saying: Increase his wages. Oh, no! That 
is not the way. If wages were suddenly increased 
to a very large extent it might easily result in de- 
moralization instead of development. There is 
practically no large group of workers in the world 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 



171 



who could stand a doubling of their wages. In- 
dividuals could, but certainly not any general group. 
Wages are only essential to the individual and social 
development of a people when they represent the 
normal consumption, the daily wholesome expenses. 
Wealth civilizes only to the extent that it is habit- 
ually consumed. Wealth that is suddenly thrust 
upon people easily demoralizes. 

Increased wages help only when they come as the 
result of a social pressure arising from the need of 
more things, from the growth of new wants, of 
new desires. Just as fast as people learn to need 
new things, it matters not what they are, whether 
slippers or carpets, whether books or art products 
or whatsoever, just as fast as the new things come 
to be a necessity, to go without which creates an- 
noyance and friction sufficient to make them put 
forth new efforts, even to undergo sacrifice to secure 
them, just so soon will the having and consuming 
of these things contribute to character develop- 
ment. It is, therefore, in the development of the 
social life, increase in the variety of demands, that 
the progress from now on must get its general stim- 
ulation, and this, too, among the working classes. 
It is no longer a question of increasing the con- 
sumption by the small "upper" classes; that has 
ceased to be an important contribution to the in- 
dustrial growth of the community. It is too small. 
It is the consumption by the masses that must grow 
if society is to progress. This can come only by the 
opportunity to increase and stimulate new wants 
and habits. 



172 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 



Opportunity here necessarily means more time, 
closer touch with broadening influences, with all 
that is going on in society. The laborers must see 
more; they must come in contact with more; they 
must have an increasing variety, or there can never 
be very much growth in their social wants and habits. 
On the political side this is also necessary for the 
development of citizenship. Wholesome leisure is 
the essence of opportunity for growth and intelli- 
gence. We recognize it in our own individual ex- 
perience. We recognize it in our children. We 
are careful that they shall not associate with the 
wrong people, that they shall not live in the wrong 
quarter of the city, that they shall not go to the 
wrong school, that they shall not have the wrong 
kind of companions. Why do we guard all this? 
Because we know that it is largely by the influences 
of the child's environments that its character is 
formed and that its individuality will eventually 
take shape. What is true of our own children is 
true of society. 

Everybody knows that intelligent understanding 
of political, social and economic conditions and 
measures is a matter of long familiarity and study. 
It is the result of an understanding touching all 
the various sides of these subjects. That is why 
we spend millions on universities and more millions 
for common schools, and why we attach so much 
importance to the fact that every citizen should 
know something of the history of his country, its 
institutions and the principles upon which they are 
based. But the great masses cannot go to college; 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 173 

they can go to school only a little while ; they must 
get their education for citizenship in the daily life, 
alongside of and contemporaneously with earning 
their living. It must be a part of their daily exist- 
ence, and for this there must be opportunity, and 
opportunity here means time. It means some re- 
lease from the pressure of getting a living. 

Moreover, it is necessary for physical reasons. So 
long as the laborer works to the point of being ex- 
hausted, so far is the possibility of this educational 
opportunity destroyed. To work in the factory 
until exhausted disqualifies a laborer for reading a 
book, for instance, and for enjoying the social in- 
fluences of family and friends. It fits him for the 
saloon, it fits him for the need of stimulants; he 
comes to the point where he wants the quickest 
relief, and unfortunately, that is too frequently 
the saloon. But to quit work before exhaustion sets 
in, before the really tired feeling has taken possession, 
is to relieve him with some vitality, some ambition 
to touch the other side of life, to be like others. 
Under all these lines, economic, educational and 
physical, opportunity means more leisure, and more 
leisure means a shortening of the working day. 

The factory system makes this more and more 
necessary in proportion as it is perfected in its mechan- 
ism. It becomes all the time more and more ex- 
acting. The greater the perfection of the ma- 
chinery or the method, the more attention is re- 
quired. The really effective side of the productive 
enterprise of society, as I have said, is no longer the 
muscle of the man but the perfection of the ma- 



174 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 



chinery, and it becomes therefore more and more 
important that the worker should be an intelligent 
and competent man, rather than a physical drudge. 
Throughout the factory system this is true. It is 
becoming more and more obvious to all who have 
studied this question. 

We are apt sometimes to complain of the employer 
for the exacting demands he makes on his men. 
But the intention of the employer is to make the 
most of his machinery; not to do that is to fail as 
a captain of industry. And whatever is necessary 
to make the most of the machinery is important to 
the successful conduct of the industry. If that 
makes the laborers tired, then, so far as the em- 
ployer is concerned, they must be tired; if it calls 
for too much strenuous attention, too much nerve 
exhaustion, then the nerve exhaustion must come 
or the machinery is a failure. The remedy for this 
cannot be found in slackening up on the demands 
for economic output and effectiveness in the ma- 
chinery. Simply to slacken on that side is to defeat 
the importance and the advantage to society of the 
improved method. The remedy for that must 
come on the other side — shortening the day, not 
slackening the effort. The tension may not be 
lessened, but the hours may be reduced. The 
exhaustion on the laborer must be avoided, but 
it cannot be avoided by reducing production; it 
must come through cutting off a pieee of the time 
required. This has become now almost a necessity. 
Not that everybody recognizes it; Dn the contrary, 
it is surprising how slowly the great employing 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 



*75 



classes of the world come to recognize this. They 
will all recognize it with reference to themselves 
individually; they find that modern business is 
more exacting than ever, and they find that to 
slacken is to fail. Consequently they find that long 
vacations are necessary to avoid physical exhaustion. 
But long vacations are impossible for laborers; it 
would mean delaying business; and, since the 
laborers cannot be relieved by long vacations, they 
must have relief by lessening the duration of the 
pressure every day. 

This has become as obvious as it is necessary, 
but, curiously, it has not been finally accepted by 
the majority of employers. That is because, as 
employers, as capitalists, they feel themselves under 
the responsibility to succeed, almost at any cost. 
But they all see it for others. For instance, the 
employers of the North can see quite readily that 
the hours of labor should be reduced in the South; 
but the southern employers cannot see it. English 
employers could not see it at all for forty years, 
and in fact they did not see it until after it was 
done against their will; but after it had been done, 
after the hours of labor had been reduced, after 
child labor below ten years of age had been pro- 
hibited, and after more than half-time work had 
been prohibited under fourteen years of age, they 
saw it and wondered why America did not adopt it. 
They exclaimed, with much philanthropy and sur- 
prise, that America did not shorten the hours of 
labor. They had seen in their own case that, while 
they thought they were going to be ruined, they 



176 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

had not been; that reducing the hours of labor had 
not lessened profits. It had not created drunken- 
ness among the laborers, but on the contrary had 
diminished disease, lessened crime, increased so- 
briety, and had greatly added to the intelligence, 
honesty and ambitions of the laboring classes. And 
production did not diminish; on the contrary, the 
production per laborer, in every line of industry 
where this had occurred, increased. They saw 
all this, to which they were very blind at the be- 
ginning, but experience made it clear that it was 
not detrimental, and they were surprised that New 
England manufacturers were so thoughtless of the 
welfare of their employees and so blind to the economic 
consequences of so humane and progressive a policy. 

New England, in its turn, after it had adopted 
some shortening of the hours against its will, ul- 
timately went through the same process. It re- 
sisted all the efforts to reduce the hours of labor, 
to restrict the age at which children should work in 
the factories, to furnish compulsory education for 
factory children, to protect dangerous machinery 
and improve the sanitary conditions of the factory, 
and provide fire escapes and other obviously humane 
requirements. It resisted all those, but after they 
came, through the sheer force of civilization, through 
the sheer force of the growing broader conceptions 
of the times as to the needs and opportunities of 
the masses, they were surprised, quite surprised, 
that the South should be still so blind. 

The reason none of them saw it until after it was 
accomplished is that they looked at it as employers, 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 



177 



as capitalists, as wealth producers. They did not 
look at it from the point of view of society, not even 
from the point of view of the future market. They 
thought a bird in the hand to-day better than the 
possibility of a future development to-morrow. 
That may continue to be the view of the short- 
sighted, but to the extent to which that view pre- 
vails are the influences which permit progress checked 
and stultified. Of course, in dealing with this, it 
must be admitted that there is a cautionary aspect 
that must be considered. Whatever is done to 
stimulate progress, in whatever country or under 
whatever conditions, must be done consistently with 
the economic interests of society, and the economic 
interests of society always involve the industrial 
interests of each and all producing factors. There- 
fore, while the shortening of the working day is 
absolutely indispensable to the continuation of 
modern industrial progress and political superiority 
and freedom, it must come in such a way as not to 
interfere materially with the economic possibilities 
of the employers. In other words, it must come 
gradually, and as far as possible, uniformly. 

There has been enough experience already in this 
line to convince a very considerable portion of em- 
ployers that it would be all right to reduce the hours 
of labor if it could be done for everybody at the 
same time. Of course, this is very often presented 
as an insurmountable obstacle and therefore as a 
reason for not doing it, rather than as a reason fur 
doing it. It is said by some that if we shorten the 
working day more than they do in England or Ger- 



I 7 8 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

many or France and other foreign countries, we 
are put at a disadvantage. To begin with, we 
ought to meet that frankly and squarely by ruling 
it out of court. Competition with other nations 

has no standing and no claim to consideration on 
this subject. It is competition only with our own 
people in this country that is to be considered. The 
public policy of America can relate only to the con- 
ditions of America. We say to manufacturers, 
and we say it frankly, against the competition of 
all foreign countries we protect you. If your wages 
are too great, or your hours of labor too short, or 
if our civilization is too high to compete with the 
cheap labor of the lower civilizations, we will pro- 
tect you. Our public policy says that they shall 
not undersell you in this country for any such a 
reason, and therefore foreign competition is en- 
titled to no serious consideration in discussing this 
question. 

But the shortening of the working day should be 
brought about, and indeed must be brought about, 
by means that are consistent with the economic 
success of domestic industry. For that reason it 
should be general. Eight hours, for instance, in 
the cotton mills of one State and twelve hours in 
the cotton mills of another is injurious in a double 
way. It is injurious in that it gives to the capitalists 
of the one State an unfair advantage over those in 
another State. In other words, it gives the ad- 
vantage of long-hour labor coupled with modern 
machinery. That means that it gives the lower 
civilization, the more backward social conditions, 






INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. i 79 

an advantage over the more advanced. Against 
that kind of conditions in other countries we impose 
a protective tariff; between States we cannot do 
that, and for that reason we should, as far as pos- 
sible, insist that the ordinary conditions under 
which business is conducted should be approximately 
the same. In the hours of labor and the employ- 
ment of children this is eminently important, and 
it is important also from the fact that giving the 
long-hour employers an advantage tends to cut off 
the better conditions for the laborers. So long as 
we can make barbarism pay, we will continue bar- 
barism. If we permit conditions to exist in which 
sixteen hours a day have an advantage over ten or 
eight hours, then we protect the sixteen hour a day 
system, whatever the result on civilization. Any- 
thing that pays will succeed, and if we can make 
pauperism and barbarism pay we can prevent civ- 
ilization from coming. So far as the general con- 
ditions are concerned, we should always see that 
civilization pays. 

In our protective policy, as I said, we do that for 
the nation. In order to have a higher social life 
among the laboring classes in this country, with 
higher wages and other superior conditions, the 
capitalist is protected against any invasion from 
lower wage and less civilized countries. Clearly, 
therefore, if the policy of securing a shorter working 
day is for economic, ethical and political reasons 
indispensable to the future progress of the country, 
we must be wise and apply the principles of sound 
statesmanship in bringing about the shorter working 



180 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

day. There are several methods; one is by legis- 
lation, another by trade union pressure, and an- 
other by co-operative agreement among employers 
themselves. The latter is by far the better. If 
the employers of this country would recognize the 
on-coming of this question — and they must be blind 
not to see it — and would put themselves sufficiently 
in line with it to apply the same kind of organizing 
and economic force to it that they do to developing 
corporations and the introduction of new methods, 
they will soon find a way to agree upon a system of 
gradually and generally reducing the working 
day. 

For instance, suppose all the iron industries of the 
country should act together and agree that they 
would reduce the working hours thirty minutes a 
year, fifteen minutes each six months, until the 
working day in all departments should reach eight 
hours. This would be of no disadvantage to any- 
body; all who were competitors with each other 
would be undergoing the same general experience. 
What affects all alike could not be a disadvantage 
to any. If some are working eight hours already, 
they would remain untouched. If there are some 
working nine hours, they would remain untouched 
at first. All who are working above ten hours would 
be reduced to ten, say on the first of January, and 
all after that who are working ten would be reduced 
fifteen minutes on the first of July and fifteen 
minutes more on the first of the following January, 
and so throughout the entire industry, taking off 
fifteen minutes from those that were above the 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 181 

minimum until the general level of eight hours was 
reached. 

In some cases that might increase the cost of 
production; that is, if the output did not increase. 
Experience has shown that in the majority of cases 
this takes place. The increased output, however, 
cannot come from the increased work of the laborer; 
it must come from the increased perfection of the 
machinery. But if the shorter hours did increase 
the cost of the finished product, it would affect prices 
but slightly and temporarily. We have had an 
illustration of this during the last few years. The 
industrial boom that we have experienced did in- 
crease the cost of production in many lines; raw 
materials rose and finished products rose, and hence 
the cost of living rose, but the outcome of it all has 
been that wages have risen also, and we have prac- 
tically reached the point where, instead of anybody 
being the poorer, everybody is the richer. Profits 
were never so great, wages were never so good, em- 
ployment was never so plentiful, and conditions 
were never so satisfactory all round as they are 
to-day. There has been a great deal of rise of prices 
in this readjustment; but the secondary fact in 
that is the improved methods and organization, 
which ultimately cheapen materially the cost of 
production and consequently cheapen the product. 
That is now going on. Prices are beginning to de- 
cline; iron and steel and all the various products 
are tending downwards, not because profits are less, 
not because business is less, not because the demand 
is falling off, but because the improved appliances 



1 82 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

and more economic adjustments have come along, 
and the working of economic forces is producing 
the usual and permanent results of greater 
economy. 

Therefore, the outcome is no disadvantage. It is 
a net gain ultimately to the welfare and social im- 
provement of the community. This same move- 
ment can take place in every other branch of in- 
dustry, just the same as in the iron and steel in- 
dustries, and here we have illustrated the advantage 
in the large corporations. The fact that the United 
States Steel Corporation controls sixty per cent, of 
the output of the iron and steel products makes 
it easier for the iron industry to get together and 
adopt this very method of gradually shaving down 
the working day. If the iron industry were in the 
hands of three or four times as many capitalists 
as it is to-day, it would be more difficult to organize 
such a policy, but the fact that it has come into the 
hands of a few makes it easier for the capitalists to 
act and generally adopt such a policy. The cotton 
industry, the furniture industry and all other in- 
dustries could be, if the employing classes really 
desired it, treated in the same way, and with no 
great difficulty. 

This is even in preference to legislation for bringing 
about the shortening of the working day. Many 
of the efforts to enforce special reductions are a mis- 
take, and the laborers sometimes make mistakes 
in this direction. For instance, there is at this mo- 
ment a bill before Congress asking that the present 
eight hour law, which applies to Government em- 






INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE 183 

ployees exclusively, shall be extended to all contract 
work which is being done for the Government. That 
is to say, it is proposed that Congress shall pass a law 
providing that any concern which supplies the 
Government with any product must adopt the eight 
hour day for the laborers working on the products 
for the Government. This, it will be observed, 
carries the condition with the contract, that to 
supply armor plate or guns or ammunition or paper 
or machinery or ships, or whatsoever, the concern 
which bids for the Government work must agree 
to employ the laborers on that work only eight 
hours a day. That is injecting the reduction of the 
working day in spots, not even in industries, but 
in spots in industries, and is nearly the opposite 
of the true policy. If this bill should become a 
law, it would preclude a very large number of con- 
cerns from the possibility of even competing for 
Government work; it would make it so, for instance, 
that if a large concern wanted to bid for a contract 
to furnish armor plates, or clothes for soldiers, it 
must practically adopt the eight hour system for 
everything; the work for the Government may be 
only a small portion of its general output, and in 
that case that firm is compelled to put itself to a 
disadvantage with other competitors on its regular 
work in the open market in order to be able to bid 
for the Government job. This, in many cases, 
would make it impossible or not worth while to bid 
for government work at all. The result would 
naturally be that there would be very little com- 
petition to supplv the Government, which would 



1 84 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

probably compel the Government to pay exorbi- 
tant prices because of the reduction of competition, 
or get its work done abroad, or else become its own 
producer. The latter would probably be the ten- 
dency, thus making the government a manufacturer 
of armor plate, a builder of ships, and in fact a 
general manufacturer for all its needs. This is 
clearly not in the direction of the true social move- 
ment for the general shortening of the working day. 
It is asking for it under conditions that produce the 
greatest friction for the least results. 

I confess considerable surprise and regret in noting 
that the Federation of Labor has become sponsor 
for this particular measure. Under the leadership 
of Mr. Gompers the Federation has been the most 
conservative and therefore the most effective ele- 
ment in the labor movement in this country. It 
has seemed always to move along the line of rational 
advancement. It has avoided the fireworks in- 
fluence of the socialists, it has given no considera- 
tion to the vagaries of the single tax, but has in- 
sisted upon concentration of the efforts of the feder- 
ation to shorten the working day and increase the 
wages and improve the factory conditions of the 
workers. Never before has it lent itself to any 
proposition that was not broad-gauged and along 
the lines of sound economic policy. In insisting 
upon this bill, grafting, as it were, the eight hour 
condition upon each individual contract, the Feder- 
ation has moved into the field of ineffective and 
really unsound policy. If it is insisted upon, it is 
quite likely to injure rather than help the movement. 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 185 

The shortening erf the working day is not a move- 
ment which can have its best effect unless it moves 
on the lines of broad-gauged policy, which shall 
eventually include all the workers of the country. It 
must become a national policy, and not a mere 
attribute to government contracts. That would 
tend to create acrimony among employers who 
are otherwise favorable to the short-hour movement, 
because it puts them to a personal disadvantage. 
That should not be. The policy should always 
be to advocate the eight hour day or the shorten- 
ing of the working day on lines and under conditions 
which shall put no employers to a disadvantage. 
Instead of insisting upon this contract stipulation 
which gives eight hours only in small and irritating 
spots, the demand should be presented as a part 
of the trade union policy, that the hours of labor 
be generally reduced and gradually, on some sliding 
scale; and the laborers, on their part, instead of 
trying to restrict the output, circumvent the use of 
machinery or other conditions of the workshop, 
should take the attitude that the employers shall 
have a free hand to use their machinery to the best 
advantage, and to control the methods of output, 
but shall co-operate in giving the laborers pro- 
tection from excessive pressure, and a share in the 
advantages of progress by a gradual shortening of 
the working day. In other words, the laborers 
should demand relief, not by interfering with the 
production, but through increase of leisure time 
in every working day and every working week in 
the year. It is on the side of the relief from 



1 86 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

work, and not the meddling with the methods 
of the work, that the laborers' improvement must 
come. 

To have it come effectively, the short-hour system 
must come with the consent of all, as a recognized 
element of the social movement of the time. It is 
as much to the interest of laborers as it is of the 
capitalists and the community that all the forces, 
political, social and economic, should be united, not 
in forcing it for the advantage of a few, but in bring- 
ing it about by means and methods which would 
make it an advantage to all. That could be ac- 
complished by a gradual, uniform reduction, by 
the co-operation of the laborers and employers by 
industries. That would be much more effective 
than by States. To adopt eight hours in one State, 
as against twelve hours in another, is putting cer- 
tain industries to a disadvantage; but if it were 
introduced by industries throughout the country 
there would be no economic disadvantage, because 
every such agreement would affect all the operators 
of any industrial group alike, and whenever all are 
affected alike there will be the minimum of friction 
and resistance. Success in any one line, in such an 
experiment — in the iron and steel industries, for 
instance — would soon demonstrate the feasibility 
of this method, so that all the forces of public opinion 
and common sense, as well as of economic interest, 
would combine in extending it to the other indus- 
tries of the country. In this way, or along this line, 
the shortening of the working day to the point of 
a national eight hour day is both possible and feas- 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 187 

ible and altogether desirable, alike for industrial, 
ethical and political reasons. 

The Chairman : Our next paper will be presented 
by Mr. A. F. Weber, Chief Statistician in the De- 
partment of Labor of New York. 

Mr. Mosely: Mr. Chairman, may I be permitted 
to carry the discussion back before the adjournment 
for one question that I asked for information? 

The Chairman : Certainly. 

Mr. Mosely: It refers to that of apprentices. 
I ask only for information because probably I mis- 
understood what had been said. I quite see to-day 
with the systematization of work, the way it is 
subdivided, that there is no longer a necessity to 
take in apprentices in the way in which it was for- 
merly done. There is no room for them. And 
that as a consequence the unions say that they must 
protect the boy from getting into work, because 
ultimately he would have found himself in a position 
of having tried to learn nothing. The machinery 
does all that now. I think that is a very wrong 
position to take and I quite agree that the question 
of apprentices should be one of mutual understand- 
ing between both employer and employee. But as 
I understand — I forget who the speaker was- — he 
said that the unions arrogated to themselves the 
sole right to say how many apprentices should be 
taken. I do not know whether I misunderstood 
that, but if that is the position that the unions adopt, 
I don't think it is sound, I don't think it is one that 
is permissible. I should be glad if I could be put 



1 88 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

right upon that point. Perhaps Mr. Gompers can 
give me that information. 

Mr. Gompers: Let the guilty party respond for 
himself. I have enough to answer for in my own 
conduct. 

The Chairman: Who is the guilty party, Mr. 
O'Connell? 

Mr. O'Connell: I guess probably I'm the guilty 
party. I desire to say that in the years gone by, 
before the evolution that has taken place in the 
industry of our country, when we went to an em- 
ployer with a view to regulating the employment 
of apprentices, we were always told: "We are running 
this business; we will employ as many boys as we 
please, and we don't desire to consult you about the 
matter." That had gone on so many years that we 
decided we had to say something about it and we 
made a definite rule. We have never had any idea 
however, of not being willing to meet the employer 
at the round table with the view of discussing mat- 
ters. We have never denied the right to take up 
with him for discussion the matter of the number 
of apprentices that should be employed. But the 
experience of years gone by, when we were denied 
the right of saying anything about that, necessi- 
tated the rule of saying how many apprentices 
should be employed, which has resulted in bringing 
about a regulation of the number in each trade, 
sometimes by conference and sometimes by reason 
of the refusal of the employers to meet the employees 
and discuss the matter. 

Mr. Mosely: Then do I understand you hold 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 189 

that the unions now absolutely dictate the number 
of apprentices that shall be employed ? 

Mr. O'Connell: In a number of trades the organ- 
izations say how many apprentices shall be employed. 

Mr. Mosely: And the employers have no say 
whatever ? 

Mr. O'Connell: That is the result of agreement 
generally. 

Mr. Mosely: With the employer? 

Mr. O'Connell: With the employer. 

Mr. Mosely: That they have nothing to say? 

Mr. O'Connell: That they have nothing to say, 
but they agree to employ so many apprentices to 
so many journeymen. For instance, in the ma- 
chinists' trade we have about 2,500 agreements in 
the United States in which the employer agrees 
that one apprentice boy to 25 journeymen shall 
be the ratio. 

Mr. Mosely: That is a matter of agreement. 
Not a matter of dictation. I only asked for infor- 
mation. 

Mr. A. F. Weber, Ph. D. (Chief Statistician, 
New York State Department of Labor) : The Secre- 
tary of the Federation has asked me to present the 
essential facts about the duration of the work-day 
in modern industry. For the purpose of discussion 
here to-day, it will be sufficient to describe the situ- 
ation in rather broad lines, and I shall therefore 
summarize as briefly as may be some of the facts 
brought out in an investigation for the New York 
Bureau of Labor Statistics in 1900. 



190 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 



The most striking fact about this question of 
hours of labor seems to me its universality. In 
virtually every country dominated by Western 
civilization the daily work-time in mechanical in- 
dustries is being cut down by successive movements 
that appear to be as inevitable as the tide, and that 
have the appearance of steps in the path of human 
progress. Even the most backward countries of 
Europe feel its influence — Italy, Hungary, Russia; 
and Spain not three months since announced that 
workmen in the government employ should work 
only eight hours a day. 

In the second place, the countries of Europe — 
continental Europe at least — have in recent years 
made more rapid progress in this movement than 
have the Anglo-Saxon countries, wherein the hours 
of labor have been shorter than those prevalent 
elsewhere, and have thereby diminished the differ- 
ences between various countries. Australia has 
for some years been an eight-hour country, and all 
other countries have been marching toward the 
same standard; the countries with the longest hours 
being farthest in the rear, have been setting the 
fastest pace. Thus England, where most of the 
trades had established the nine-hour day more 
than twenty years ago, has been moving rather 
slowly toward the eight-hour day; but in Italy, 
where a quarter of a century ago fourteen and six- 
teen hours a day were quite common, there are now 
only two factories in a thousand that exceed ten 
and one-half hours as the regular working day 
schedule. Italy has been an exception in thus 






INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 



191 



shortening the working time without resort to legis- 
lation, for most of the European countries have 
established a maximum work-day by statute which 
applies not only to women and minors as in the 
United States, but also to adult males. In France 
the compulsory day is now ten and one-half hours, 
but after April 1, 1904, will be the same as in most 
American States — ten hours; in the other conti- 
nental countries, the statutory maximum is gen- 
erally eleven hours a day, but numerous industries 
have shortened this period by private agreement 
among the employers and the employed. Thus 
the printers in several countries have established 
the nine-hour day (in Germany, the eight-hour day) ; 
while in Austria the hours of work in coal mines have 
been very recently reduced by law from eleven and 
twelve to nine per day, as a result of a strike. In 
Denmark the shorter hour movement has been 
making such headway that the average duration of 
the working day is now probably about the same 
as in the United States. 

In the United States itself the tendency toward 
shorter hours has been slow but fairly constant, 
and when working-time has once been reduced in an 
industry it has almost invariably remained at the 
shorter limit. Premising that an average is a very 
crude expression of the widely varying standards 
of daily working-time, we may say that the average 
length of the work-day in the factories of this country 
has decreased from twelve or fourteen hours at the 
beginning of the nineteenth century, to about ten 
hours at the opening of the twentieth century. 



192 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

This statement does not include the building trades, 
wherein the hours have always been much shorter; 
but over against these large classes of wage earners 
with the eight-hour day are the thousands of men 
employed in the transportation business — on rail- 
roads, steamships, docks, trucks, etc. — whose work- 
ing hours will average more than sixty a week. 
Hence, on the whole, we shall come pretty near the 
mark if we accept ten hours as the average working 
time per day in American industries, as compared 
with eight hours in Australia, nine hours in England, 
and about eleven hours in Continental Europe. 

The earliest movement for shortening the work- 
day naturally originated in the building trades, 
wherein competition is localized and agreements 
concerning the conditions of work thereby greatly 
facilitated. Very soon after the War of 18.12 the 
ship carpenters undertook to substitute the ten- 
hour day for a schedule of work from sun to sun, and 
by 1825 began to realize their aspirations through 
the medium of strikes. In 1840 President Van 
Buren issued a ten-hour order for the government 
navy yards, and that led to the general adoption of 
the ten-hour day throughout the ship building in- 
dustry of the country. By the middle of the cen- 
tury, ten hours had become the customary working 
time for the mechanics in the building trades of the 
cities; but it was some years before it became the 
standard in factories, which were invariably oper- 
ated for eleven hours or more. In 1874, the year 
in which the British Parliament established the 
nine and one-half hour day for women and minors 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. i 93 

in textile factories, Massachusetts copied the Eng- 
lish ten-hour law of 1847. Other States slowly 
followed Massachusetts' example, and by 1890, ten 
hours constituted the normal work-day in American 
factories, except the new ones in the Southern 
States. While two or three State legislatures have 
further reduced the weekly working time to fifty- 
five (New Jersey and Ohio) and fifty-eight 
(Massachusetts) hours, such reductions have been 
counterbalanced by the growth of factories in the 
South with the consequent increase in hours, so that 
ten hours still represents the normal work-day of 
factory operatives in this country. 

The movement toward the ten-hour day in fac- 
tories, following the Civil War, was strengthened 
by a similar movement for eight hours among the 
building mechanics, who had already won for them- 
selves the ten-hour day. Their desire for still 
shorter hours was perfectly natural, because as 
villages grew into cities their work places became 
farther and farther distant from their homes, so 
that the time required for traveling from one to the 
other made serious inroads into the time left them 
for the enjoyment of leisure and home life. Just 
why they demanded eight hours rather than nine 
hours cannot be readily explained unless we ascribe 
it to foreign influence. Some time in the first half 
of the nineteenth century the English workingmen 
had started the eight-hour movement with the 
slogan "eight hours for work; eight hours for play; 
eight hours for sleep, and eight 'bobs' (shillings) a 
day"; and as early as 1853 a great dispute occurred 



1 9 4 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

in London which turned on the question of an eight- 
hour work- day. The London workingmen failed, 
but three years later a similar attempt on the part 
of some of the building trades at Melbourne, Aus- 
tralia, resulted in the establishment of the eight- 
hour day. It is not unlikely that these foreign 
occurrences found an echo in the United States; at 
any rate the General Workmen's Congress, held at 
Baltimore the first year after the war, declared the 
eight-hour day to be the first and greatest need of 
labor, and in the same year the ship carpenters un- 
successfully struck for eight hours. Legislation 
began at once, Connecticut leading the way in 1867 
by establishing eight hours as a legal day's work in 
the absence of special agreement; the United States 
government followed the next year with an eight- 
hour law for its employees, and the larger common- 
wealths speedily enacted similar laws. 

It thus appears that the eight-hour movement is 
no new thing, but is on the contrary a long cher- 
ished aspiration of the working people. The recog- 
nition accorded it by economists in these late years 
was foreshadowed by a committee of the Massa- 
chusetts Legislature in the last year of the Civil War. 
In a unanimous report made on April 28, 1865 
(nine years before factory legislation began in that 
State), a joint committee of the Senate and the 
House said: "In the hearings before our committee 
the testimony and the demand were unanimous for 
a still further decrease of the hours of labor, praying 
for a limitation by law of eight hours as a legal 
dav's labor The testimony of those who ap- 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. i 95 

peared before us and who represented and spoke 
the sentiments of thousands of their fellow-crafts- 
men, demonstrated to our satisfaction that not only 
could the productive industry of the country bear 
this, but even more." But the obstacle in the way 
of State legislation for a maximum labor day was 
the fear that it might be at least a temporary 
handicap in the competition with rival States, and 
this apprehension prevented any effective legislation 
for several years. Even when it did come, it simply 
took the form of limiting the daily hours of work in 
factories to the normal day in general employment 
(ten hours). 

While on public works the eight-hour day was 
established by legislation, in private industries eight 
hours became the standard only to the extent that 
it was agreed upon between employers and their 
workmen. A single exception to this rule de- 
serves mention on account of the important de- 
cision from the United States Supreme Court that 
it called forth; I refer to the legislation of Wyoming, 
Utah and other Western States prohibiting a longer 
work-day than one of eight hours in all mines and 
smelters. The constitutionality of this legislation 
has been settled affirmatively by our highest court 
in its consideration of the Utah statute of 1896. 
Other legislation restricting the hours of work of 
adult males in private industries has been sustained 
by the courts of various States with reference to 
such occupations as those of bakers, barbers, rail- 
road men, and so on; but this legislation, like that 
limiting the hours of labor of women and minors in 



i 9 6 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

factories, simply enforces for such work the ten-hour 
standard existing in other employments. 

There was a time when the impetus given to the 
eight-hour movement by the eight-hour laws of 1867 
and following years seemed destined to place private 
industries on the eight -hour basis. The working- 
men and their friends organized eight-hour leagues, 
parades and other demonstrations, and through 
strikes or peaceful means established the eight-hour 
day in several of the building trades. But in the 
very midst of their successes the financial crisis of 
1873 occurred, and in the long business depression 
that followed the workmen gave up their short hour 
privileges and rejoiced to find work under any. con- 
ditions. It was nearly ten years before they re- 
sumed their campaign, first through the Knights of 
Labor, which developed their maximum strength in 
the middle of the eighties ; and subsequently through 
the American Federation of Labor, which for the last 
fifteen years has held the hegemony of the labor 
movement in this country. In 1885 the union cigar 
makers won the eight-hour day, and since then most 
of the building trades — bricklayers and masons, 
stone cutters, carpenters, painters, lathers, plumbers 
and others — have reduced their hours of work to 
eight or nine daily — the eight-hour day, forty-four 
hours a week, being general in the constructive 
industry of the larger cities. Most of the miners, 
either through legislation or agreement with 
employers, have also reduced hours of work 
to eight per day. The printers who get out 
the German newspapers, and the operators of type- 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. i 97 

setting machines, have likewise established the 
eight-hour day; while the other union printers 
have, by agreement with the American Newspaper 
Publishers' Association made nine hours the present 
standard in the printing industry. Union glass 
workers and piano and organ workers have also 
made nine hours the maximum working time in 
scattered localities, and the same applies to union 
machinists and blacksmiths, who are almost the 
only men in the iron and steel trades who have made 
a concerted effort to do away with the ten-hour 
day. 

The extent to which American industry is moving 
away from the ten-hour day may be indicated by 
brief reference to the statistics of the Department 
of Labor of this State. Of the 647,000 persons em- 
ployed in factories inspected by the Department's 
staff last year, only 62 per cent, were working more 
than nine and one-half hours a day, and in New York 
City the proportion fell to 46 per cent., or less than 
one-half of all the employees. Almost one-half of 
the organized working people in this State now work 
on the eight-hour schedule. 

The proposal to establish a general eight-hour 
day is a matter of grave concern to everybody in- 
terested in the popular welfare, which depends in 
large measure upon the national product. Re- 
garding the effect of such a reduction in the working 
time upon the- aggregate product of our industries 
the experience of the past affords useful lessons. I 
think that any person who makes an unprejudiced 
study of the historical tendency to shorten the hours 



i 9 8 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

of labor during the nineteenth century will inevit- 
ably come to a conclusion in favor of the shorter work 
day, which has meant (i) increased physical effi- 
ciency (2) greater intelligence and inventiveness 
among the workers, and (3) a purer family life, which 
in turn signifies in the succeeding generation better 
trained and more trustworthy workers on the one 
hand, and on the other fewer paupers, criminals and 
other unproductive persons to be maintained out 
of the social product.' 

The bearing of these conclusions upon the present 
discussion may be illustrated with one or two con- 
crete cases: A few months ago the New York State 
Board of Arbitration was called upon to mediate 
a difficulty in several saw mills in the Tupper Lake 
region, where the workingmen had refused to con- 
tinue to work eleven hours a day. They asserted 
that they had been able to endure work for eleven 
hours so long as the mills depended upon water power, 
but that with the introduction of steam power and 
the consequent speeding of the machinery they were 
completely exhausted before the day closed. And 
investigation in fact showed that these laborers were 
obliged to lay off every other week or month and 
seek recuperation in hunting or lumbering work. 
The employers in this instance declined to submit 
the dispute to arbitration, on the ground presumably 
that they found the eleven-hour day more profitable 
than a shorter day. But to the community at 
large the system is unprofitable, for it leaves the men 
no time or energy to perform their duties as citizens 
and wears them out at an early age. If they were 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. i 99 

slaves instead of freemen, it would pay the master 
to take better care of them. 

This illustration shows that the real crux of the 
question of hours lies in the point of view taken, and 
nowhere has it been more tersely stated than in these 
words of Professor Clark, of Columbia University: 

"If you want a man to work for you one day and 
one day only, and secure the greatest possible amount 
of work he is capable of performing you must make 
him work for twenty-four hours. If you would have 
him work a week it will be necessary to reduce the 
time to twenty hours a day ; if you want him to work 
for a month a still further reduction to eighteen 
hours a day. For the year, fifteen hours a day will 
do ; for several years, ten hours ; but if you wish to get 
the most out of a man for a working lifetime, you will 
have to reduce his hours of labor to eight each day." 

Here is the eight-hour question in a nutshell. 
Because the community had a vital interest in the 
life-long efficiency of its workers, it reduced the 
hours of labor to ten hours a day at a time when 
many employers insisted that the reduction meant 
a serious curtailment of output. And yet the ex- 
perience of a few years showed that such curtail- 
ment was temporary only; within three years after 
the English ten-hour law of 1847 went into effect, 
the Chief Factory Inspector reported that operatives 
employed on piece work were as a rule making as 
good wages as ever;* and so overwhelming were the 

* Factory Inspector Horner reported that "in all 
those departments of the factory in which wages are 






200 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

proofs of enhanced efficiency a few years later that 
bitter opponents of the ten-hour law became earnest 
supporters of a bill to extend the law to non-textile 
factories. Precisely similar results followed the 
enactment of the Massachusetts ten-hour law of 
1874, as proved in Carroll D. Wright's official inves- 
tigation of 1 88 1, which led to similar enactments in 
the other manufacturing States . 

That the time is now ripe for another general re- 
duction in the daily working time is indicated by 
the testimony of physicians and the mortality statis- 

paid by piece-work — and these constitute probably not 
less than four-fifths of the whole — it has been found that 
the quantity produced in ten and one-half hours falls little 
short of that formerly obtained from twelve hours. In 
some cases it is said to be equal. This is accounted for 
partly by the increased stimulus given to ingenuity to make 
the machines more perfect and capable of increased speed, 
but it arises far more from the work people by improved 
health, by absence of that weariness and exhaustion which 
the long hours occasioned, and by their increased cheer- 
fulness and activity, being enabled to work more steadily 
and diligently and to economize time, intervals of rest while 
at their work being now less necessary." 

In a recent study of English factory legislation, George H. 
Wood voices the general conclusion when he says that 
"as a rule the effect of each limitation of the hours of 
labor has been to raise wages, though for a while they may 
have fallen a little. This usually operates through an 
increase in the efficiency of labor, which maintains or in- 
creases the former output in the lessened hours." 

American experience has taught the same lesson of the 
dependence of efficiency upon a high standard of living. 
After the enactment of the ten-hour law in Massachusetts, 
proprietors of cotton mills in that State complained that 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 



aoi 



tics of occupations. Medical research shows that a 
ten-hour day in modern industry calls for an ex- 
penditure of either muscular or nervous energy or 
both — depending upon the nature of the work — 
that inevitably shortens life. If we ask for stronger 
proof than that furnished by individual physicians, 
it can be found in the English mortality statistics, 
which show that the death rate among occupied 
males is almost twice as great in the industrial as in 
the agricultural districts. Taking 1,000 as the 
standard of measurement for all males, we find 

they were unable to compete with rival factories in the 
neighboring communities of New England and New York, 
which were operated eleven or eleven and one-half hours a 
day. They submitted their books to show that the labor 
cost of their goods had increased almost proportionately with 
the forced reduction of hours. While they could not prevail 
upon the Legislature to repeal the law, they succeeded in 
having an official investigation of the question made by the 
State Bureau of Labor Statistics. The report of Carroll D. 
Wright, then chief of the Massachusetts Bureau, vindicated 
the ten-hour law. 

Colonel Wright's famous report of 1881 declared (page 457) 
that " Massachusetts with ten hours produces as much per 
man or per loom or per spindle, equal grades being consid- 
ered, as other States with eleven hours or more," and also 
that " wages here rule as high, if not higher, than in the 
States where the mills run longer time." As a matter of 
fact, the cotton industry of Massachusetts has outstripped 
that of all her rivals in the North in every decade since the 
enactment of her ten-hour law. In 1870, four years prior to 
the passage of the law, Massachusetts had only 39 per cent, 
of all the cotton spindles in the North Atlantic States; since 
then Massachusetts has gradually increased its proportion to 
54 per cent, at the census of 1900. 



202 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

the mortality among dock laborers to be 1,829 as 
compared with 604 among schoolmasters. The 
enormous disparity points to a most unprofitable 
organization of industry. In the United States, 
according to the unanimous testimony of American 
and foreign observers, the workingmen are worn out 
at an even earlier age than in England or elsewhere. 

The Chairman: Our next speaker will be Mr. 
Lewis Nixon, President of the United States Ship- 
building Company. 

Mr. Nixon: I did not intend to do anything but 
come here and listen to you. It seems, however, 
that there is an impression — certainly I have gath- 
ered it myself, and I fear that some of the others 
may have gathered it — that those of us who are on 
the executive committee as representing the manu- 
facturers' side have been content to sit and listen 
to a number of reflections upon the manufacturers 
as distinguished from the men who labor for the 
manufacturers. There can be no question, I think, 
among those who have studied conditions in this 
country, but that one of the great successes in manu- 
facturing in America arises from the fact that the 
wage earners and the man who employs them are co- 
laborers and that they both work. Hence, I did 
not want the impression to go forth that we were 
satisfied to have reflections as to our sense of right 
and justice in our dealings with the wage earner 
go by without answering them. I think that you 
will all agree that the manufacturing interests of 
this country have produced such results, in the re- 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 



203 



finement of their product, in the economy of pro- 
duction, and in the way that they have ennobled 
the action of those who engage in manufacturing, 
that they are on an equality with any profession 
or any occupation. Therefore, I arise to speak to-day 
for the manufacturer, and I do so because I realize 
that I am a worker. I do not believe that any man 
can rise in this country unless he is a worker. It 
is in that respect that our industrial conditions 
differ so much from those described by Mr. Mosely 
as prevailing in England. He spoke of the differ- 
ence between Master and Man. Here we work with 
the men, not over them, and welcome every sug- 
gestion which the) 7 have to offer. I therefore wanted 
simply to emphasize the fact that we, as manu- 
facturers, do not acknowledge that we hold the 
sword over the workingman and keep from him 
those rights to which he is justly entitled. I have 
heard it said here absolutely, without any denial, 
that the whole system of piece-work — one of the 
things that has done so much for the upbuilding of 
American manufacture — was based on injustice; 
that we stand and watch a man, and if he increases 
his daily output we cut down the rate so he cannot 
make a living wage. That may be so in individual 
instances, but it is not true of American industries 
generally; otherwise, they would not be -what they 
are to-day. (Applause.) It is not true. 

Now, we have had a great deal of talk here to-day 
on the eight-hour question, and I wish it understood 
very plainly that I speak as a friend of the laboring 
man and one who believes in reducing to the lowest 



204 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 



possible degree the hours of labor. I have reduced 
them myself. You have all heard the story of the 
crowd of men who were watching an unfortunate man 
who had been hurt on the street. After many people 
had expressed their sympathy, one man took off his 
hat and put a dollar in it and passed it around, say- 
ing: "I sympathize with this man one dollar's 
worth, how much do you sympathize with him?" 
My sympathy has cost me forty or fifty thousand 
dollars a year in the last five years, so I know just 
what these conditions mean, nevertheless I consider 
the money well expended. But I think that we, as 
manufacturers, if we are going to say anything and 
assume our responsibility on this committee, ought 
to give you something from a manufacturer's point 
of view. You have heard it said that the rapid in- 
crease in the number of inventions of labor-saving 
machinery are expressions of our wonderful ingenuity 
in the form of tools and appliances for lessening the 
amount of work which has to be put upon the unit 
of production — has been one of the great causes of 
our advance. We have great tools and great ma- 
chinery. It is the custom here in this country to 
scrap a whole machine shop if it is out of date. We 
wipe it out if we possibly can, rather than patch it up. 
The consequence is that when you reduce radically 
the hours of labor, you do not simply put a number 
of men out of the workshop, but you let that great 
tool lie idle. Now, I am perfectly satisfied as a manu- 
facturer that we shall come to the time when we will 
let that tool lie idle. The advantage of a dual shift 
running sixteen hours has been put forward. That 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 



205 



is very well in theory, but you have to cipher every 
thing down in manufacturing, gentlemen, and I want 
to tell you that, while we have heard a great deal 
of industrial philosophy and a great deal from the 
dilettante, the workman and his employer know that 
the basis upon which they are going to settle every- 
thing is, "Does it pay? " and unless you apply that 
criterion, you will not arrive at any definite result. 
(Applause.) If it does not pay, a manufacturer can- 
not continue to operate. Now, I would like to see 
every man who works for a wage in America able 
to enjoy the delights and pleasures of his family, to 
have recreation at night, and not be driven into the 
bar-room, the condition of which Mr. Gunton speaks. 
The latter is rapidly coming to be the case in this 
country ; but the manufacturer sometimes has a little 
worry himself. If, on Saturday night he must pro- 
duce ten thousand dollars to pay his workmen — and 
that is one thing that is never held up in this country 
— and after scraping the bottom of his till and passing 
all the notes that he can possibly do, he can only get 
nine thousand, he has worries that come home about 
as straight as any of the wage-earner's troubles. 
And, therefore, when men come to him in a perfectly 
fair, square way and say, "we want more money or 
we want less time," there should be that communion 
between them, that understanding as between man 
and man, which will let them talk it over. And that 
is what my conception is of the advantage and the 
aim of this committee that we have now which has 
brought about this most interesting discussion. I 
know that there is admitted here — and almost uni- 



206 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

versally throughout the country — the divine right of 
organization, but those who are most anxious to as- 
sert the divine right want to draw the line. Now, 
where does the line stop? For instance, if we had 
all the garment workers in any one district, and if 
ninety per cent, of them were to combine for their 
mutual protection that they might make better 
profits and get along better in the world and improve 
their production, and the other ten per cent, would 
stay out, have the ninety per cent, a right to compel 
the factories to close and tell them they cannot work ? 
Of course they have not, and no one thinks they 
have. And I have been very much struck by the 
conservatism of those leaders of labor who have 
spoken here. They have not been nearly so radical 
in what they have said as the dilettante and the pro- 
fessor of labor. (Laughter.) But they have given 
us good, real common sense, and they have given us 
reasons why they want certain conditions, and I am 
very well satisfied that we want to arrive as near as 
possible to what they advise. 

I have heard it said here that we did not need 
foreign orders — let us stick to the home markets. 
Now, the wonderful industrial and commercial up- 
building of this country has been on such a scale 
that we are liable to have periods of industrial depres- 
sion due to overproduction and congestion, and, I 
may be in a minority in believing it, but I do believe 
that one of the great balance wheels of our whole 
industrial economy lies in the fact that the surplus 
or overplus can be taken care of. If we can arrive at 
that delightful condition of affairs where we are able to 






INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 



207 



consume everything that we produce, that is splendid, 
and it is a condition of affairs, of course, that is 
pleasing to everyone. If, however, there comes a 
time when somebody must shut up his shop because 
the people cannot take his product, it means disaster 
all through the country, and hence I think that we 
do need a foreign market. Countries are getting 
closer together. Nations are awakening to new de- 
sires, and, as you know, when a man wakes to new 
desires, he somehow develops a capacity for satisfying 
them, and hence the world deals with the world. 
The United States cannot afford to build a Chinese 
wall around itself and shut itself up and say: "We 
are going to consume everything we manufacture, and 
when we cannot do it we will shut down the factories 
to make the production profitable." Mr. Mosely 
said yesterday: "If that is the case and you are 
going to depend upon your home market, you have 
too many workmen in the United States." Now, the 
workmen are the men who are developing our wonder- 
ful resources, and they are the men who are going to 
develop and bring out America, and we cannot have 
too many of them. We want to bring on the condi- 
tions that will not only keep them employed, but 
enable us to continue those high wages throughout all 
time, and if we are going to do that, we must consider 
the foreign market and consider it seriously. 

Mr. Mosely spoke yesterday, too, about comparing 
the European and English workmen with the Ameri- 
can workmen. He lost sight of one thing. I do not 
know whether I will tread upon the toes of any pro- 
hibitionist in stating what I shall say on the question 



208 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

of liquor in England. I lived in England for three 
years. I went among the men who worked because 
I went abroad to study shipbuilding — and that is the 
great nation of shipbuilders — and I wanted to know 
how they lived and to get their ideas and to under- 
stand something of their point of view. The climate 
of England is such that no man can do a hard day's 
work unless he drinks. (Laughter.) That may 
seem a startling expression ; but it is absolutely true. 
(Applause.) In America we are blessed in a way 
that we can hardly conceive. The very air we 
breathe is tonic and exhilarating to such an extent 
that a man can do more work here, and he does not 
need stimulating liquors. Really their use is a hurt 
and detriment to him, and if he does more work he 
ought to and does get more pay. 

There was another thing that struck me very 
forcibly in Mr. Mosely's remarks. I am going to take 
a text from everybody that I can. Mr. Mosely said: 
"I see you call large corporations trusts." I am 
sorry to say that a great many people do. It is be- 
cause this country, which owes its great industrial up- 
building to the stability and permanence given to in- 
dustrial conditions by corporations, has taken the 
trouble also of manufacturing something that has al- 
ways worked at its full capacity, the bogy man. 
And while there are a great many bad things about 
corporations which would put down wages and re- 
strict the output, the great corporations of this coun- 
try are the laboring man's friend. He can always 
deal with them ; can get his rights and his hearing 
any time, and he knows it. 



1XDUS TRIAL CONFERENCE. 



209 



Now, of course, I am not one of those who believe 
in too much law, certainly law that interferes with 
the individual. I believe that all the questions 
affecting the good of both the wage-earner and those 
who pay him or those who employ him are going to 
be settled by evolution and by a gradual understand- 
ing on the part of each of the real claims of the other 
man. And as we find with our development of tools 
and our facilities and our inventions that we can 
produce more work in fewer hours, then those fewer 
hours are coming. They have practically come al- 
ready, and I want to say that if you will make them 
universal and fair, I believe the manufacturers will 
meet you more than half way. But I must state an 
illustration which comes straight home to you. If I 
work nine hours in my shipyard and compete with a 
man who works ten hours in Philadelphia, you know 
just exactly where I am going to come out. The 
question of ships is not settled on sentiment but on 
price, and hence the man that works ten hours will 
get the business. They say, "No; that is not true. 
The men who work nine hours are better men and 
will come here." But unfortunately that is not 
true, and I want to tell you something that has hap- 
pened. I just called up on the telephone before I 
came here to find out what the men make who are 
paid by piece, and I find they are getting six, seven 
and eight dollars a day, depending largely upon the 
weather. The men who work for them, the more 
skilled men, they pay four dollars, and they pay their 
laborers a special wage of twenty-five cents more 
than the rest of the vard. Now, we endeavored to 



210 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

settle the piece-work scale on some drilling. The 
men were then getting $2.25 per day. We wanted to 
give them so much for drilling a hole. All right; we 
gave them finally exactly what they asked and they 
are making now $3.85. Now, they either loafed on 
us at the $2.25 on which we based the payment, or 
they have not been fair. Anyway, I am glad they 
are getting $3.85, because I am getting the work done, 
and I have not cut them down, and I don't believe 
any other manufacturer will cut them down either. 

So let us, if we can, bring about this condition 
that we are working for without shock. Let us do 
as we have done and meet together. When we have 
to come to a point where we cannot settle things, 
we will fight it out. Now, I rarely have any fight 
myself, but I am talking generally. It sometimes 
clears the atmosphere and settles the question which 
you cannot settle otherwise. I do not believe in cod- 
dling any man who works for me, because I would not 
let a man do that to me when I was working. So I 
say to men, if you want to give men libraries and 
things they don't want, turn around and give it to 
them in hours and money and they will be better 
satisfied. (Great applause.) 

Mr. Mosely: Mr. Chairman, may I arise again? 

The Chairman: Yes, sir; you are a privileged 
character. 

Mr. Mosely: It is a question more of sentiment 
perhaps than anything else. Mr. Nixon made the 
remark that in England he thought drink a neces- 
sity of the people. I beg on behalf of England to 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 211 

offer a protest to that statement. (Laughter.) I 
have done in my time a good many hours of work, 
sixteen, eighteen or twenty, whatever it was neces- 
sary to do when I was in business, but I have never 
been a drinker, and I know a great many men who 
have never been drinkers who have been able to 
put in a better day's work than those who do. I 
should like to know if he considers drink an abso- 
lute necessity to our race. 

Mr. Nixon: Gentlemen, I have found that the 
Englishmen who come over with me sometimes 
drink pretty hard for a year, and then they loosen up 
and become better men. I do not know whether 
Mr. Mosely considers he has worked his eighteen 
hours a day with a hammer or something of that 
sort. I am talking about hard physical work that 
takes the very life out of you. I know very well 
a man can work eighteen hours a day. I have done 
it myself, and whatever little measure of success has 
come to me has been because I have worked longer than 
eight hours a day , because when I work eight hours I am 
on the same basis as the other men. And when in Eng- 
land I probably did take a drink. But I talked to the 
men themselves and they said it was necessary and I 
have to take their evidence. (Applause and laughter.) 

The Chairman: The next speaker will be Mr. 
Marburg, a former large employer of labor, and Vice- 
President of the American Economic Association. 

Mr. Marburg: A Scotch judge who was dis- 
turbingly prompt in rendering his decisions, had 
said of him, "He has nae fears, he has nae doots, He 



2I2 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

gangs by instinct like the brutes." If you find a 
dearth of statistics and historical allusion in the 
short paper I am about to present I hope you will 
not attribute it to an over-reliance on instinct. 
There are some questions that cannot be solved by 
statistics and history; Would any amount of in- 
vestigation of economic conditions in the South 
have helped Abraham Lincoln to solve the slavery 
question, or is it likely that the most impartial and 
enlightened commission he could have sent there 
would have recommended abolition? We are all 
apt to think existing conditions founded in neces- 
sity. Furthermore, both business men and scien- 
tific men are prone to neglect the dynamic side of 
questions; i.e., the new forces that are brought into 
play with new conditions. 

Few of us doubt that the career of unexampled 
economic activity upon which our own country has 
entered points to ascendency in the field of industry. 
What concerns us is to study the forces that are 
calculated to make our position secure and enduring. 
There is reason to believe that the cycles of growth 
and decay that mark the history of nations were 
born of conditions that are being modified. The 
new places of the earth, the cultivation of which 
moved the centers of human activity, are rapidly 
filling up. We shall probably not escape the fate 
of other nations, but we may postpone the day of 
decline, and show some lasting gain to humanity 
as the result of our activities. 

Attention to the ethical side of the labor question 
is one means of bringing this about. 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 213 

In approaching this subject we need as perspective 
a consciousness not only of the contribution of 
machinery to wealth, but of the part it has played in 
increasing opportunity for employment and in in- 
creasing wages. The great increase in the number 
of people following gainful pursuits, not only in 
America, where the phenomenon is explained partly 
by the existence of new land to be cultivated, but 
in Europe too, has taken place since the advent of 
power-machines. It has been shown that in America 
money wages have advanced 82 per cent., and real 
wages 132 per cent., since 1840. There is no ques- 
tion but that machinery means increased oppor- 
tunity and increased wages. Now this increase of 
wages is bound to come to the laborer whether he 
makes an effort to secure it or not. If it does not 
come in the form of an increase in money wages, 
it will come as cheaper commodities, which is an 
increase of real wages. The betterment of the con- 
ditions of labor does not come thus automatically. 
There is no such economic force in operation there 
as that which cheapens commodities. To bring 
about an important improvement in the conditions 
of labor, including shorter hours, calls for conscious 
action on the part of society or of some group of 
men. 

There is every indication that long before the be- 
ginning of the industrial era the working hours in 
England were approximately eight per day. The 
industrial era which brought with it such incal- 
culable ameliorations for men in so many directions 
did not produce what might have been expected 



214 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 



of it, an important lightening of the burden of labor, 
and conditions calculated to promote physical vigor. 
As it developed, the hours of labor increased until 
they reached sixteen per day; then through inter- 
ference of Parliament, through the pressure of pub- 
lic opinion, and of trade unions, and through the 
force of public opinion, they were gradually reduced, 
until now the average working day in England is 
nine hours. In the United States the average is 
close to ten hours. 

We are all familiar with the way in which machin- 
ery increases our command over the forces of nature, 
but a few instances of its marvelous aid may not be 
out of place. 

One hundred years ago men pointed with pride 
to the fact that by means of division of labor it was 
possible for a workman to produce 4,800 pins a day. 
Now by the aid of machinery one man produces one 
and a half millions. The making of a pair of shoes 
by the latest machinery calls for only one-fifth of 
the labor required a few years ago. The hand loom 
produced about 45 yards of cotton cloth per week. 
To-day one weaver directing six power machines 
produces about 1,000 yards per week. The pro- 
duction of plows by machinery costs one-seventh 
as much as by hand, and watch movements one- 
fortieth as much. 

It is possible to compare the results of old meth- 
ods, still persisted in in England, and new methods 
in vogue in America. The English nailmaker and 
his assistant turn out 200 pounds of nails per week, 
earning together less than $4.00. The Pittsburg 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 215 

nailmaker and his assistant turn out 2 J tons per week, 
earning respectively $30.00 and $9.00. 

In the early part of the nineteenth century it 
took 236 hours to produce a given quantity of cut 
nails, which are now produced in two hours. The 
cost was then $20.24, and is now 29 cents. 

The laborer gets higher wages, and more for his 
wages as time goes on, but much of his expenditure 
is dictated by the necessity of conforming to the 
habits of his neighbors. The money he spends on the 
education of his children, on better housing, better 
food and clothing, and on recreation, is well spent, 
but it is a question whether the gaudier appearance 
of the household, and the fancy dress of the women, 
add much to the household's real happiness. 

The nucleus of the position here taken is that 
adequate leisure for the laborer will mean more for 
society than a further increase of wages. The prog- 
ress of industry in the past justifies the hope of 
further progress, and the legitimate object of a move- 
ment for shorter hours may be to divert the benefits 
of this progress from the channel of increased wages 
to that of increased leisure. That progress, we 
feel, is assured. To reduce the hours of labor is 
simply to discount this advance of industry; or, 
if the reduction of hours be sufficiently gradual, 
it need do no more than keep pace with the advance. 

It might be urged that it matters little whether 
industry gives away the increase in the form of 
wages or in the form of leisure, but such an assertion 
needs to be qualified. If the gain goes to the la- 
borer as increased pay in money wages or real wages 



216 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

it increases the purchasing power of this class and 
stimulates industry. For the moment, industry 
would gain more by the increase in wages. But the 
true interests of society are best subserved by in- 
creasing the mental, moral and physical stature 
of the working man, and in the long run the interests 
of industry and society in this respect are identical. 

The greatest machine is man. If we improve 
him, if we increase his personal powers, the effect- 
iveness of all other machinery is increased thereby, 
since it is he who invents and operates it all. This 
is what we mean when we state that a shorter work- 
day than the present average of nearly ten hours 
in the United States can be justified on purely 
economic grounds. 

But we may err in laying stress unceasingly upon 
the duty of increasing commerce and industry to 
the exclusion of other interests. No one to-day 
disputes the importance of commerce. Without 
the wealth which commerce creates progress would 
be difficult. But after all, it is only the means to 
an end; if we cease to so regard it, we abuse it. 

Create wealth. That is the first injunction of 
modern society. But create it for a purpose. The 
happiness of employer and laborer alike may be 
sacrificed under the iron rule of economic dictates 
and men forget the object of it all. Mere growth of 
numbers and trade is not progress. In the ancient 
world we saw the hordes stationary, whilst little 
Greece moved forward the human mind and spirit 
so wonderfully. To-day it is western Europe and 
America, with comparatively small numbers, as 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 217 

against stationary China and India. I recently 
visited an interesting man on the hearth of whose 
study were wrought the words, "No wealth but life." 
This conclusion of Ruskin had been adopted by 
an eminent economist thinking on the subject of 
wealth. In its final analysis he could find nothing 
material in wealth. Life, in this sense, is the natural 
and healthy exercise of human faculties, and this 
is at the same time a definition of happiness. It 
is the intellectual and spiritual, including the sesthetic, 
which differentiates us from the animals, and if this 
is so, the highest life and happiness are found in the 
healthy exercise of these faculties. Feeding and 
keeping warm, and gathering the wherewithal to 
feed and keep warm are but the means of life; they 
are not only not an end in themselves, but are not 
life, and those whose activities cease there have not 
lived. 

To say that a proper use would not be made of 
increased leisure is a reflection upon our race. We 
are a nation of strong moral motive, have shown 
ourselves capable of great disinterested acts, and 
can be trusted to use wisely additional leisure. 
Some men would spend their leisure at the tavern, 
but indulgence to excess is often the result of re- 
action, or the outcome of a lack of balance of the 
nervous system. Lessening the strain on men is 
not likely to increase such indulgence. The actual 
experience of communities where hours have been 
shortened points to improved morals in the working 
man. 

Plato defines the free man as he who is sufficiently 



218 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

master of his passions to follow the dictates of 
reason in choosing between good and evil. The 
definition might well be extended to include suffi- 
cient mastery over environment to free us from con- 
ditions which hamper growth. 

With more leisure the laborer will share more in 
the mental side of social life, and will be compensated 
in a measure for the loss of the interesting work 
which engaged the attention of the old handi-crafts- 
man. Give him a little plot of ground in which to 
dig, a taste for reading, light the spark of intel- 
lectual pleasure, no matter of what kind, and awaken 
that wonderful desire for self-improvement which 
has carried the spirit of man so far on its way, and 
the leisure will not be misspent. He will feel that 
the conquest of mind over matter is his inheritance 
too, will feel it all the more because of his growing 
intelligence, will feel it not only because he partici- 
pates more largely in the fruits of that conquest, 
but in the work of conquest. We have yet a long 
way to travel before we make the conditions of 
labor so easy as to impair character. 

The economic cost of shorter hours will vary ac- 
cordingly as the proposed reduction of hours is 
inaugurated abruptly or gradually through a period 
of years. To abruptly reduce the working day by 
two hours, supposing that to be the reduction con- 
templated, would cause a dislocation of industry 
which a gradual reduction of hours would avoid. 
A programme which would call for a reduction of 
a quarter of an hour each year through a period of 
eight years would appeal to most of us as the safer 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 219 

and wiser programme. Gradual as against abrupt 
change expresses a principle the importance of 
which cannot be overstated in connection with 
measures affecting industry. 

Our industries grew under the Clay-Calhoun com- 
promise, which reduced the tariff 5 per cent, per 
annum through a period of nine years; the gradual 
reduction acted as a stimulus to invention. 

Economic cost must be considered from the stand- 
point, first, of what the industrial world as a whole 
can afford; second, of what any particular nation 
can afford in view of its competition with other 
nations. 

If the hours prevailing in a particular country are 
such as to dull the faculties and lessen the energies 
of men, manifestly there will be an immediate gain 
from reducing them; otherwise it is deceptive to 
look to increased vigor or application for a full re- 
pair of the loss in personal efficiency per day which 
shorter hours would bring. The demand for in- 
creased leisure in the industrial world as a whole 
may be justified by the ever increasing efficiency 
which arises from industrial progress, irrespective 
of any improvement in the laborer himself. The 
improvement in the laborer may come — it will 
come — but the argument need not rest upon any 
such supposition. 

Upon the question of economic cost from the 
standpoint of what any one nation can afford in 
view of its competition with other nations, English 
experience throws considerable light. We have seen 
the working day in England reduced from sixteen 



220 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

hours per day in the early part of the last century to 
an average of nine hours per day. Before this re- 
duction of hours began in 1835 the number of oper- 
atives in the textile industry was 220,000; in 1890 
it was 528,000. 

Macaulay made an eloquent plea for the eight- 
hour bill of 1847, dwelling upon the prime impor- 
tance of preserving the physique and energies of the 
race. The opponents of the measure protested 
against it as an "invasion of the rights of property," 
and as preventing the laborer from using the facul- 
ties with which God had blessed him. If was 
urged that hours could not be reduced without re- 
ducing wages; that the trade of England would 
be ruined if the bill passed. Such an enlightened 
and progressive champion of the people as John 
Bright went entirely wrong on the question. He 
called it a proposition "injurious and destructive 
to the best interests of the country; contrary to all 
principles of sound legislation, a delusion practiced 
upon the working people, and the worst measure 
ever passed in the shape of an act of legislation." 
He predicted its early repeal if passed. Outside 
Parliament the political economists were arrayed 
against the measure, Senior explaining that the 
profits of manufacture were made exclusively in the 
last hour; that "to shorten the day would be tanta- 
mount to letting the machine stand idle." 

In this connection I cannot refrain from quoting 
a bit from Charles Dickens given by Brentano: 

"Surely there never was such fragile china-ware as that 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 221 

of which the millers of Coketown were made. Handle them 
never so lightly, and they fell to pieces with such ease that 
you might suspect them of having been flawed before. 
They were ruined, when they were required to send labor- 
ing children to school; they were ruined, when inspectors 
were appointed to look into their works; they were ruined, 
when such inspectors considered it doubtful whether they 
were quite justified in chopping people up with their ma- 
chinery; they were utterly undone, when it was hinted 
that perhaps they need not always make quite so much 
smoke. Whenever a Coketowner felt he was ill-used, that 
is to say, whenever he was not left entirely alone, and it 
was proposed to hold him accountable for the consequences 
of any of his acts — he was sure to come out with the awful 
menace, that he would "sooner pitch his property into the 
Atlantic." This had terrified the Home Secretary within 
an inch of his life, on several occasions. However, the 
Coketowners were so patriotic, after all, that they never 
had pitched their property into the Atlantic yet, but, on 
the contrary, had been kind enough to take mighty good 
care of it. So there it was in the haze yonder; and it in- 
creased and multiplied." 

We see the Englishmen with a shorter working 
day and higher wages competing successfully in the 
world's markets with his continental brethren. The 
number of operators per 1,000 cotton spindles is 17 in 
many factories in Russia as against three in factories 
in England. A comparison between the cotton in- 
dustry in England and Germany a few years back, 
given by Krapotkin shows the following: 

England Germany 

Hours of labor 9 hours 12 hours 

Average weekly earnings of operatives .... 16s. 3d lis. 8d. 

Yards woven per week per operative 706 yds. 466 yds. 

Cost per yard of cotton 0.275d 0.303d. 



222 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

We cannot assume that because the shortening 
of the working day to nine hours has not increased 
the cost of production in England it would be safe 
for her to make a general further reduction. 

It is true that the England of to-day is somewhat 
in the position of an individual living on his income. 
Her enormous excess of imports over exports is really 
payment in kind for the interest due to Englishmen 
from their foreign investments, allowance of course 
being made for profits of her great carrying trade, 
from her security and banking business with for- 
eigners, and the money expended in England by 
visitors. These notwithstanding, the only way in 
which she at present feeds her large population is by 
exchanging manufactures for food stuffs. A duty 
on imports would protect her home market, but if 
she lost her foreign market for manufactures she 
would be unable to feed her people. The growing 
rivalry of Germany and America makes England's 
position to-day much more delicate than formerly. 
We are forced to ask ourselves whether England will 
be able to lead any longer in reducing the hours of 
labor in factories. In local services of course she 
can act independently of other nations. The miners 
in England are very properly enjoying a working 
day shorter than the average, and in a few industrial 
establishments the hours of labor have been re- 
duced to eight. The testimony regarding the work- 
ings of the eight hour day can hardly be said to have 
scientific value, for the double reason that the tes- 
timony is not unanimously favorable, and that the 
establishments observing the short day are so few. 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 



223 



The experience of England on the whole leaves it 
undetermined whether men can produce as much in 
eight hours as in nine hours. For the present we are 
forced to assume that for certain races the nine hours 
day is the economic day. I mean by the economic 
day the time in which the laborer can produce in the 
long run the greatest amount. It is different for 
different races. A Spaniard would not wear himself 
out in the same number of hours as an Englishman 
or American. Our claim for a shorter working day 
than nine hours in America must be based as already 
postulated, principally on the growing progress 
of industry. Any other position is speculative. 

But the workingman is not merely a machine. 
Is it fair, after all, to approach the question of hours 
from the standpoint of the economic day, i.e., from 
the standpoint of the greatest amount of work that 
can be gotten out of the laborer? He is a creature 
of feelings and aspirations, and it is proper to ask 
ourselves whether the question of the length of the 
labor day should not be approached rather from the 
standpoint of what industry can afford. 

Turning to the United States, a glance at our 
trade statistics reveals the fact that we are in the 
exceptional position of having an enormous amount 
of food stuffs to spare for foreign markets, and at 
the same time sending abroad more manufactured 
products than we import. A country may be de- 
veloping its internal resources and domestic industry 
so rapidly that it can well afford to buy from the 
foreigner more than it sells him, and may derive a 
great advantage from acquiring abroad things which 






224 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 



promote industry at home. But when it can show 
an enormous surplus of exports over imports, in ad- 
dition to great domestic prosperity and growth, 
surely its position is advantageous. 

Why should we work from three-quarters of an 
hour to an hour longer than England each day? As 
a first proposition, would it not be entirely safe for 
us to gradually reduce the working day from the 
present average of nearly ten hours to the average 
of nine hours which prevails in England? Next, 
have we not an instrument at hand in our tariff to 
protect our home market from invasion, if we feared 
such results from a further gradual reduction to 
eight hours per day? 

Surely with the aid of the tariff we could lead the 
way in the direction of lightening the task of labor. 
Would it not be such a thing as the world expects 
of America, in line with her history, her unselfishness 
and her progress? Would it not be a noble final 
use to make of a system which has played such a 
notable part in our economy, but the necessity for 
the continuance of which under present conditions 
is rapidly passing away ? 

The tariff could not insure the continuance of our 
foreign trade in manufactured products, but are we 
not prone to overvalue foreign trade, to regard the 
country as an individual who must exchange his 
wares with other traders? National boundaries are, 
at best, arbitrary lines, and a great country like ours 
has within it what is equivalent to many lands. 
To be Irish, our greatest foreign trade is done at 
home, between the empires of North and South and 






INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 225 



East and West. And moreover, we are more than 
traders swapping. We are great producers our- 
selves, creating wealth that breeds wealth. Two- 
thirds of our exports are still agricultural products, 
the price of which would not be greatly affected by 
the proposed reduction of hours, because such re- 
duction would not apply to agriculture. 

If we hope to take the lead internationally in the 
direction of shorter hours, it is important that the 
movement should be inaugurated before our ex- 
ports of manufactures become too large a proportion 
of our total exports, so that too wide a field of in- 
dustry may not be disturbed by cutting them down. 
Again, if we conclude that the tariff' will be needed 
at the start to protect our home industries from 
invasion, we have here another reason for the prompt 
inauguration of the movement. The logical basis 
for our protective tariff is the infant industry basis. 
When manufactured products can be exported to 
advantage, and when the formation of trusts breaks 
down the competition within the country which 
has served to keep down prices despite the tariff, 
the citizen begins to think about modifying pro- 
tective duties. When once abandoned, it would be 
asking too much of the people to restore the duties 
for the express purpose of lessening the hours of 
labor. 

The position taken in this paper is: First, that 
a gradual reduction of hours would not seriously 
increase the cost of manufactures, and therefore 
would not affect our exports; second, that even 
if it did increase cost, with the result of cutting down 



226 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

our exports of manufactured products, the game 
would still be worth the candle. 

We have here a force which would make for the 
upbuilding of American manhood, and it is worth 
while sacrificing a portion of our foreign exports, 
if this were necessary — which I question — in order 
to accomplish it. (Applause.) 

Now as to the instruments. We have seen the 
reduction of hours brought about thus far princi- 
pally by two forces, the law and the trade union. 
The latter is expensive, because it implies strikes. 
The suggestion is made that the desired end may 
be secured by concerted action on the part of par- 
ticular trades, the employer conceding shorter hours 
in consideration of the laborer abandoning limit- 
ation of output, which most of us believe is practiced, 
despite what Mr. O'Connell told us this morning. 
This practice we all know is exceedingly harmful to 
society and to the laborer himself. The laborer's 
wages depend ultimately upon what the laborer pro- 
duces. And if he consciously produces less, he 
in the long run is consciously limiting his return. 
Mr. Easley, our Secretary, reports many favorable 
responses to inquiries sent out in this connection. 
Over 60 per cent, of the replies from the communi- 
cations sent to employers were favorable. The 
movement is to be heartily commended, but I should 
like to point out one or two weaknesses in the pro- 
gramme which it might be well for us to realize 
now, so that we may not be discouraged when they 
turn up. In 1885 there was a general movement 
in the smoking tobacco industry for a reduction of 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 227 

the working day to eight hours. Without any actual 
understanding the larger manufacturers adopted 
the eight-hour day, one following the lead of another. 
The wages of the day laborer were not reduced, and 
the price of piece-work was increased one-fifth, so 
that as much might be earned in eight hours as for- 
merly in ten. But what was the result? These 
factories were scattered all over the country. There 
was no strong local sentiment, nor effective trade 
union to maintain the shorter day. It was impossible 
to resist the temptation in a growing industry; — and 
most of the industries in a growing country like ours 
are growing industries — to work longer than eight 
hours; to work ten hours and even more. In a short 
while we were back to ten hours, and the net result 
of the movement was solely an increase of wages. 

Again, supposing the eight-hour day be established 
under the plan we are considering, new employers 
entering the field would be inclined to violate the 
rule of the trade, and might do so successfully away 
from the centres, the increase of such new comers 
in numbers and importance gradually undermining 
the system. The growth of the printing business 
in small places, such as Madison, Wis., is to be 
explained by a similar desire to escape the control 
of trade unions. 

If the working day it is proposed to establish by 
law is shorter than the economic working day, it is 
going to be most difficult to maintain it otherwise 
than by law. To what extent would the Sabbath 
be observed in our big cities were it not for the law? 
One man would open his shop, then his neighbor 



228 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE* 

would open his shop, and presently every shop 
would be open. The preponderant sentiment, four- 
fifths, might be in favor of Sabbath observance, but 
the other one-fifth would destroy the possibility of it. 

Still another danger which we must be prepared 
to meet. After the laborer has come to believe 
himself secure in the enjoyment of an eight-hour day, 
and has ceased to regard it as part of a compromise, 
what is there to prevent his returning to the per- 
nicious practice of limiting output? 

We might be compelled, after all, to fall back upon 
the law. But the plan presents commendable features 
as an entering wedge for the shorter day, and to the 
minds of many an appeal to the law to fortify existing 
practice is always more acceptable than looking to 
it for initiative. 

Coming now to the law as an instrument of our 
purpose, we turn naturally to the form it has hereto- 
fore taken in America, namely, State legislation. The 
successful lead taken by Massachusetts in reducing 
hours, and its effect upon legislation elsewhere, are 
so well known that they need not be dwelt upon. 
This notwithstanding it must always remain risky 
for a State of the Union to reduce its working day 
in competitive industries below the average working 
"day of other States. To hope that our legislatures 
can ever be brought to display the good sense of 
acting in concert in regard to this and other important 
legislation which ought to be uniform in all the States, 
is expecting too much of them. 

In non-competitive industries, such as the tele- 
phone, telegraph, gas and electric lighting, water 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 229 

works, street railways, retail shops and everything 
partaking of the nature of local services, it will be 
seen at once that the Gtate can insist with safety 
upon shorter hours, independently of the action of 
other States. States and municipalities, in granting 
franchises, may make the hours of labor a condition 
of the grant. It is seldom that municipalities make 
a proper charge for franchises, and such a provision 
is not likely to cause franchises to go a-begging. 

It is, of course, always possible for the government, 
local, State or national, to give a shorter day to its 
own employees, and to provide for it in connection 
with contracts given out. But unless this can be 
shown to operate strongly as a propaganda, its jus- 
tice and expediency may be questioned. There are 
few countries in the world where the government em- 
ployee works as honestly as the man in private in- 
dustry; he already receives higher wages, and why 
should he be given shorter hours? 

Moreover, if small groups of men enjoy a working 
day shorter than the economic working day, they do 
so at the expense of their fellow- workers. Social 
justice requires that the shorter day be secured for 
the many. If there be variation, let it be in favor 
of the difficult and dangerous trades. 

The moment we propose to regulate hours, it is 
immediately objected that men have a right to work 
as many hours as they like. Now, all social right 
resolves itself into social expediency. The old idea 
that the individual has certain natural rights of which 
the State cannot deprive him is rapidly passing away. 
The doctrine of natural rights was set up to safeguard 



230 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

the individual at a time when tyranny often took 
the form of interference with the free action of the 
individual in fields in which it was best for society 
that his action should be free. Instead of following 
this circuitous path, we now appeal directly to social 
expediency. Whatever it is expedient that the State 
should do, it has a right to do. It deprives the 
criminal of the foremost of his so-called "natural" 
rights, the right to life. It forbids us now to do 
certain work on Sunday. If it be socially expedient 
tnat it should limit the hours of labor on week-days, 
it has a right to so limit them. 

To enable the Federal government to regulate 
hours in the general field of industry might call for a 
change in the constitution. We know how difficult 
this is to bring about, but in itself there is no objec- 
tion to such a grant. The three most liberal govern- 
ments of Europe, viz.: England, Switzerland and 
France, all have this power. Switzerland made 
special provision for it in her constitution. They 
have all used it most conservatively, and there is 
little ground for a presumption that our Congress 
would abuse it. Such an amendment would simplify 
the whole problem, the right to regulate hours then 
being in the hands of the body who could accommo- 
date the tariff, if necessary, to the change. Confer- 
ring such power on the central government is sure 
to be objected to as making for centralization, but 
when we think out many of the problems of the day, 
are we not forced to fall back on centralization for 
their solution? Modern transportation and com- 
munication have lessened the sharpness of State lines. 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 2 3I 

Interests which were formerly local are become na- 
tional. There are many questions which we can con- 
tinue indefinitely to regulate locally. Others have 
entirely leaped the boundaries of the separate States 
and can be dealt with successfully only by the 
central government. It has been suggested that a 
law regulating hours might be optional for trades: 
i. e., not come into force until a majority of opera- 
tives in a given trade had declared in favor of it. 

I want to say in conclusion, gentlemen, that for 
many years I have had this subject in mind, as an 
employer and a student of economics. I have 
ceased to speculate about it. Introduced gradually, 
as is proposed, it would be entirely safe, and the men 
who should carry such a measure for lightening the 
burden of labor in our broad and rich land would 
be doing for the white laborer something akin to that 
which Lincoln did for the black man. (Applause.) 

The Chairman: The programme of the afternoon 
calls on Mr. George H. Barbour, who is connected 
with the National Association of Manufacturers, of 
Detroit, to address us next. 

Hon. George H. Barbour: Mr. Chairman and 
Gentlemen — The speakers that have preceded me 
have given this subject so much careful attention and 
consideration that I do not wish to tire you, because 
I feel if I take too much of your time on this subject 
you will feel somewhat exhausted. 

I have been invited by your secretary to present 
to you my opinion of the subject of the eight-hour 
proposed law, known as Bill No. 3076. Representing 



2 3 -2 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

the chairmanship of the legislative committee of the 
National Association of Manufacturers, and being con- 
nected with an institution that is a large employer of 
labor, I realize the importance of this subject, and 
have decided to give you my opinion of the same from 
the standpoint of the manufacturer. 

This is no new subject to me. I a*n on record as hav- 
ing expressed myself freely, and in 1897 I wrote a 
paper at the request of the Hon. Charles H. 
Morse, then Commissioner of Labor of the State of 
Michigan, which paper was in response to one written 
at that time by Samuel Gompers, President of the 
American Federation of Lr.bor, and published in the 
Fourteenth Annual Report of the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics of Michigan, 1897. I may, during my re- 
marks, take the liberty of referring to some of the 
arguments I presented at that time. 

During the month of May of this year I appeared 
with other members of the legislative committee of 
the National Association of Manufacturers, before 
the Senate Committee, in Washington, at a hearing 
on this eight-hour bill. 

My position in 1897 was about the same as it is 
to-day; there is but one position to take on a subject 
of this kind, and that is to endeavor to deal with both 
sides impartially and justly. 

The eight-hour movement has been much discussed 
and has received a great deal of attention during the 
past six years or more. I do not favor long hours 
of labor if they can be shortened in any way which 
will not prove to the disadvantage of all interested 
parties; but before adopting any such measure, we 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 



233 



must carefully consider the effects. In these pros- 
perous times is it not of the greatest importance that 
we do nothing to disturb or affect this universal 
prosperity ? 

Changing the hours of labor from ten to eight a 
day means a twenty per cent, reduction in the manu- 
factured product. Take a manufacturing institution 
that is running on the basis of ten hours a day, to 
its fullest capacity, with a demand for its entire 
product on this basis, and with this reduction it has 
to do one of two things; it must either increase its 
capacity twenty per cent, and increase its laboring 
force twenty per cent., which means additional ex- 
pense for its manufactured product, or else it must 
curtail its production. I feel that I am taking sides 
with labor as much as I can possibly be defending the 
manufacturer, when I say that a condition such as 
above referred to would mean that the manufacturer 
would have to get increased prices for his product or 
else he would have to decrease the wages paid to 
labor to produce it. I am one who favors good wages 
to the laborer at all times, believing that the manu- 
facturer should give to labor all the advantages he 
possibly can, especially when there is a condition of 
prosperity. 

If the government should pass this eight-hour bill, 
all concerns contracting with the government for any 
work or supplies of any kind would come under its 
provisions; suppose a manufacturer working on the 
eight-hour basis has a contract from the government 
for certain machinery, and some of the articles en- 
tering into the construction of the same — it may be 



234 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

bolts, lubricators, or a hundred different things — 
were made on the outside by concerns running on the 
ten-hour basis. What would be the condition? 
Sufficient pressure would be brought to bear upon 
the government so that it might refuse the product 
of the manufacturer who would, in his own institu- 
tion, be working on the eight-hour basis, but who was 
compelled to purchase some article or articles made 
by a concern working on the ten-hour basis, and here 
would be a very serious condition, and one which 
would affect many people. 

Let me say right here I would never oppose the 
eight-hour bill if the law would become universal, 
but I do oppose it if it is to be a sectional law, or is 
adopted by some States and not by all, because it 
places the manufacturer at a great disadvantage, 
and is certain to also affect the employee. 

The manufacturing interest of this country is one 
of its most important factors; it is growing, it is 
becoming more important ; it is giving employment to 
labor; it is daily increasing in importance, and I 
say to you that wise judgment should prevail and 
nothing should be done without the most careful con- 
sideration of the results involved, that would have 
a tendency to revolutionize basic conditions which 
have required a century of careful study to formulate. 

I am not considering this subject solely from the 
interests of the manufacturer, because I believe the 
manufacturer and his employees should at all times 
work in perfect harmony, as their interests are un- 
doubtedly mutual. I should, however, like to see a 
different condition existing between capital and labor 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE 235 

than at present. I want capital to deal rightly with 
labor, and I want labor to deal justly with capital, 
or those who employ it. The business men of this 
country must use extra efforts to bring about closer 
relations between capital and labor. I sometimes 
think that labor does not fully realize the fact that 
in this country some men will have greater wealth 
than others, and it seems to consider this a great in- 
justice, but I never expect to see the time when there 
will be a more equal division of money than exists to-day. 

In this I am reminded of an incident that occurred 
in connection with Mr. George Vanderbilt at the time 
he was building his beautiful home and expending an 
immense amount of money in North Carolina. He 
was at that time employing laborers, artists, mechan- 
ics and all classes of workmen. Walking into the 
grounds one morning he met one of the laborers who 
did not know him, never having met him, and who 
said to him: "Does it not seem wrong that this 
great amount of wealth should belong to one man? 
It should be divided." Mr. Vanderbilt said to the 
man: "How much do you think your share would 
be, providing it was divided with the laboring classes 
of the United States?" The answer was: "I think 
about five dollars." Mr. Vanderbilt put his hand in 
his pocket and handed the man five dollars, saying: 
"There is your share." The incident was related by 
the man at the hotel that evening, and he said that 
he had his share of the wealth of the country. 

But to come back to the direct subject, the eight- 
hour law. Will you allow me to read from my paper 
published in 1897? If the eight-hour law could be- 



236 IXDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

come a universal one, and if all the manufacturers in 
the United States were working on the eight-hour 
basis, I would not oppose it. But if this were the case, 
some provision would have to be made to increase 
the production. Let us consider the condition of to- 
day. Working on the ten-hour basis, many manu- 
facturers are unable to produce sufficient of their 
products to meet the demands. I cite the pig iron 
product and the sheet iron product, and many articles 
produced from iron and steel. The shortage of the 
coke product is becoming most serious, and is at the 
present time somewhat alarming, as the late coal 
strike has compelled many people to substitute coke 
for that fuel, at extravagant prices, and the laborer 
has felt this seriously. 

When a manufacturer has to compete with another 
in the same line, one working on the ten-hour basis 
and the other on the eight-hour basis, he certainly 
would be at a great disadvantage, and is there any 
one who can stand up and argue that with this 
twenty per cent, difference the manufacturers work- 
ing eight hours could possibly compete with the one 
working ten? 

I admit that shortening the hours of labor would 
in many instances allow the employee to spend more 
time with his family, and have an additional amount 
of recreation; but is it worth the attempt to have 
this bill become a law, even nationally, with the 
disadvantages which I have explained, which would 
certainly follow with government contracts, and 
which, in my opinion, are sure to reach the pockets of 
the laborers? 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 237 

The laborer would be affected if the manufacturers' 
product were reduced twenty per cent., and it means 
that the expense of production would be increased 
at least a certain percentage. Who is to pay for the 
increased prices that would follow increased cost of 
production? The consumer, of course, and labor is 
a large consumer of all products, so where is it bene- 
fited ? If the manufacturer, by reducing the hours of 
labor, has to curtail his production and thereby in- 
crease the prices, the laboring man has got to stand 
his share. So I repeat, in discussing this question, 
I am taking the side of the laboring man as much as 
I am considering the manufacturer. 

Should this eight-hour bill pass the Senate (I admit 
for the- time it would only affect government em- 
ployees and those having contracts with the govern- 
ment), it would establish a precedent which is liable 
to affect State legislation. One State might pass an 
eight-hour law, another State continue under the ten- 
hour law, and here comes the competition between 
manufacturers in the same line of business, one work- 
ing on the eight-hour and the other on the ten-hour 
basis. 

I cannot but feel that the eight-hour bill, if passed 
in its present form, would injure instead of protect 
the laboring classes. A laboring man earning on the 
basis of 25 cents per hour, working ten hours a day 
makes $2.50; if brought down to eight hours a day, 
is there any one who would believe that he would be 
as well satisfied to receive one-fifth less wages, earning 
■ only $2.00 instead of $2.50? Do you not agree with 
me that a manufacturer changing from the ten-hour 



238 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

basis to the eight-hour would have to reduce the 
wages of his employees in proportion? 

In considering this subject carefully, as I have for 
several years past, I am led to believe that the present 
bill calling for eight hours, if passed, would be what 
I term class legislation, as the bill itself (clause 
21-24) exempts railroads and transportation com- 
panies. The hours of labor in this country have 
never reached what they are in foreign countries, 
and I hope they never will. I was asked by the 
chairman of the committee of the Senate this ques- 
tion: "Do you not think that it is possible for a 
manufacturer to secure sufficient labor, so that if he 
were extraordinarily busy and his institution was 
arranged for it, he could make three shifts of eight 
hours each?" My answer was: "That would be an 
impossibility at the present time." When there was 
a lack of business, and some particular manufacturer 
was crowded in his line, and labor was a drug on the 
market, he possibly might accomplish that, but when 
business is as it is to-day, it would be an impossi- 
bility, because all labor is well employed, and I am 
told by men connected with the largest institutions 
of this country working twenty-four hours, that it 
is almost impossible to get two shifts. So, what are 
we to do with a condition like this, when the capac- 
ity of the manufacturer is driven to its utmost to 
meet the requirements of the trade, and he is hardly 
able to get the labor that he requires, which is our pres- 
ent condition ? I like to see labor employed. It is a 
much more satisfactory and beneficial condition to have 
labor employed than to have it seeking employment. 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 239 

I am one who believes it is advisable sometimes 
to "let well enough alone." Not that I do not be- 
lieve in conditions being improved, but we do not 
want to do radical things; we do not want to take 
chances of disturbing a condition that is as satisfac- 
tory as the present one, by passing an eight-hour law 
or doing anything else that will injure the present 
conditions. 

I could give you a number of reasons why I think 
the eight-hour law, unless it became universal — 
don't make any mistake in this statement of mine — 
would be disastrous to not only the manufacturer, 
but to the laborer as well. 

I have endeavored within the brief time allotted to 
me to give you some reasons why both sides will be 
seriously affected. If time permitted, I would give 
still more. That this subject may have the benefit 
of anything I have ever said regarding it, I would 
like to submit, with what I present at this time, the 
paper which I wrote in 1897, to which I have pre- 
viously referred, as well also as the paper which I 
submitted to the Senate committee at its hearing in 
May. 

There are two words in the English language that 
carry a great deal of weight with them — they are 
"supply" and "demand." We are benefited or in- 
jured, as the case may be, by the conditions of supply 
and demand. When there is a demand, as exists to- 
day, for the entire products of the manufacturing in- 
stitutions of this country, we certainly must be in a 
very satisfactory condition; if it requires, as it does, 
the products of the manufacturers working ten hours 



2 4 o INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

a day— and I am free to say if certain manufactured 
products were increased twenty-five or fifty per cent, 
their entire output would be called for — is it wise 
and is it to the advantage of labor to insist upon this 
eight-hour law? When there is a good supply and 
a large demand, I will guarantee prosperous times 
and all classes of labor are sure to feel the good effects 
of the same. 

Now, for the sake of the argument, I am not sure 
but a nine-hour law might be brought about to the 
satisfaction of both the manufacturer and the laborer, 
providing some abuses could be remedied. Some 
men are always prompt and ready to commence work 
at the blow of the whistle, while others will often be, 
say, five to ten minutes late, and they will take an 
additional amount of time before they get to work. 
Again, during the morning hours, they stop to take 
lunch and use up ten minutes time at least ; after this 
the noon hour approaches ; they are anxious to hear the 
whistle blow, and may stop work ten minutes before 
noon so that they can wash ; and a similar condition 
of things goes on in the afternoon. Now, you can 
readily see if we only calculate on the time lost in their 
morning's work we have fifteen to twenty minutes 
time against them, and imagine if you can with a large 
force of employees what this means to the employer. 
The machinery is running all the time, and the en- 
ploy er has a right to expect an honest day's work, 
but such things as I have mentioned creep in. If 
these objectionable conditions could be removed, I 
believe I might personally favor nine hours as a day's 
work. I think this could be accomplished by both 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 241 

the employer and the employee giving due considera- 
tion to each other's rights, and if the employee would 
give nine hours honest work, I do not hesitate to say 
I believe it would compensate the manufacturer for 
the additional hour granted, but it certainly would 
have to come about in this way, if equal justice is to 
be shared between both parties interested. 

This on the face of it means a ten per cent, re- 
duction, but 1 believe if the manufacturer will do his 
part and the laborer will do his part, and be honest and 
endeavor to make up during the nine hours of the 
day the extra hour given him, wrrch means he 
would have to gain about six minutes to each hour; in 
other words, by working a little harder during the 
nine hours, paying a little closer attention to his work, 
he would be able to turn out the same amount of 
work that he did in the ten hours — this would work 
to the satisfaction of all interested. 

Of course under these conditions the manufacturer 
would have to pay for the nine hours work the 
same wages that he formerly paid for the ten. I 
do not say for a certainty this would be accomplished, 
but I believe it is the wisest thing to consider. The 
manufacturer might be willing to concede this, 
providing his employees would accomplish in the 
nine hours what they are doing now in ten. This 
may be a solution of the problem. I am satisfied 
that an eight-hour law at this time, unless it be 
universal, will produce serious results to both the em- 
ployer and the employee. Do not let us do any T 
thing that will place a check upon the present con- 
dition of prosperity. I would like to see every 



242 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 



laboring man in this country the possessor of a nice 
home, comfortably furnished, grounds beautified, 
but I never expect to see this. I am glad to know, 
however, that we have many attractive homes 
owned by the laboring classes of to-day, and I believe 
this condition can be shown in no other country. 
And I thank God I can go through New England, 
I can go through the West, or the Northwest, among 
the homes of the laboring people, and find there some 
sunshine and some happiness. 

If I could in any way, by working days, nights 
or Sundays, improve the condition of the laboring 
man, I would most cheerfully give the time; but 
I hesitate. I am afraid the leaders of the organ- 
ization would not agree with me, and that the labor 
that I might devote to the subject would prove of 
no avail. Every employer of labor should feel 
interested in those who assist in making his business 
a success; they are entitled to a fair compensation 
for the services rendered by them. No one feels 
more interested in, or is willing to do more to im- 
prove the condition of the laborer than I am. If 
anything can be done to harmonize all differences 
and cement the mutual interests of employer and 
employee it should be done, and no one is more 
interested in bringing this about than I. 

I consider the subject of the eight-hour bill one 
of most vital importance, and is it not entirely a 
business proposition? And it should not be de- 
cided without the most careful consideration and 
sufficient time given to it to understand what it 
really means. Let us be just, man to man, if we 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 243 

would succeed, and success is what we would strive 
for. Do not allow any legislation which will prove 
to the disadvantage of either the employer or the 
employee. We should only enact such laws as 
will benefit both. Let us throw aside petty strife 
and give this subject earnest and careful deliber- 
ation, endeavoring to reach such conclusions as 
will prove of the greatest benefit alike to all interested. 
The manufacturer is the greatest employer of labor, 
and is, therefore, vitally interested in this question. 
If a mistake is made, both parties must suffer, 
as it is important that this question of an eight 
hour law should be given the most careful thought, 
and that only such legislation may be enacted as 
will fully protect and advance the interests of both. 
(Applause.) 
Adjourned. 

The opening session of the third day's meeting 
was called to order promptly at 10:30 by Secretary 
Ralph M. Easley, in the absence of Chairman 
Hanna, and he then read the following extract 
from a letter received from Mr. Fred A. Underwood, 
President of the Erie Railroad Company. 

"Arbitration to be such must first be carried on 
by men who have some knowledge of the subject 
and are not in any way interested. The difficulty 
with the arbitrations we have thus far undertaken 
has been that the labor organizations have insisted 
upon having their partisans upon the board. Our 
experience with them has been that they have, in 
no instance, been able to rise above a state of feeling 



244 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

which leads them to think that they must have a 
' friend on the jury.' An example of this was recently 
had in this city, where a body of skilled artisans 
was offered arbitration. They insisted on putting 
in the head of their order, whose plan was to secure 
for them what they asked. All efforts to induce 
them to choose a competent, disinterested arbitrator 
were futile. The other party to the controversy 
named a man who had no direct interest in either 
side, but was fully competent. 

"When both parties can agree on a competent, 
disinterested Board of Arbitration, whose members, 
aside from their technical knowledge of the sub- 
ject to be arbitrated, shall have independence of 
character, then we have gone a long way towards 
solving the differences between labor and capital. 
In furtherance of this a permanent Board of Arbi- 
tration might be instituted, something on the order 
of the National Civic Federation. For example: 
a board of mechanical engineers, to consider the 
differences between mechanics, also other technical 
boards, whose knowledge would render them effi- 
cient in their various specialties. . . . 

"The principle of competent arbitration is sound,, 
and we will have to enter upon the missionary work 
of converting owners and managers to a sense of 
fairness. They must drop the personal and deal 
with their men as they are, and not as they think 
they should be. No employer's personal opinion 
of labor organizations or his personal inclinations in 
the matter of dealing with them are worth anything 
in business. He must recognize the fact that they 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 



245 



are here and are a factor. Prejudices against them 
on the part of employers and managers must be 
sunken. The existing conditions must be dealt 
with in the same manner as are climatic disturb- 
ances or others of an impersonal nature. 

"The prejudice that the laboring class has against 
capital must be recognized and dealt with as a 
human attribute. Given a man with education 
and the power of money, he must recognize the state 
of mind of the man who has neither, and he must 
go half way, and more at times, in consequence of 
the mental state of the other. 

"The employee must be educated to realize the 
fact that the employer is his friend; that their inter- 
ests are common, and the idea that his employer 
seeks to take petty advantage of him must be erad- 
icated. These prejudices have been created by 
employers, dating back to the days of small enter- 
prises, where the owner exercised a personal super- 
vision over every detail and was not above taking 
petty advantages. While the personal method 
of conducting business has changed, owing to the 
great enlargement which has taken place in every 
branch of industry, the prejudices which were born 
of past injustice are yet present." 

Mr. Easley continued as follows: The Civic Fed- 
eration recently sent out a letter to the large manu- 
facturers of the country containing a number of 
questions. This list of manufacturers contained 
none of less capital than $500,000. One of the 
questions in that circular was: "Do you regard it a 
practical proposition to gradually reduce hours by 



246 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

voluntary uniform agreement through a given 
industry, providing the employees agree to abandon 
any arbitrary restriction upon output?" 

With that question went this explanation: "On 
the question of shorter hours it is clear that agitation 
is increasing, and where not settled by voluntary 
agreement or through a strike takes the form of effort 
for legislative enactment. An eight-hour bill is 
now before Congress supported by the labor organ- 
izations and opposed by the employers, especially 
by the National Association of Manufacturers. 
Judge McCammon, representing large ship builders, 
in his address before the Congressional Committee, 
said: 

. . . In presenting the final argument on be- 
half of certain companies and individuals, it seems 
incumbent upon me to disclaim any opposition 
either to the theory of those who advocate an 
eight-hour system or to the practical application 
of an eight-hour system where the consent of various 
trades and manufacturers which produce the same 
or similar articles is unanimous. This consent must 
of necessity be practically unanimous or universal, 
else the advantage must be with the establishment 
which employs men to work ten or twelve hours in 
producing substantially the same product as those 
working shorter hours. Our opposition is to no 
theory, to no principle, but directed to the vicious 
attempt to compel a contractor to be placed at a 
disadvantage in connection with producers in the 
same line of business if the bill under discussion 
should become a law." 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 



247 



The plan of securing a shorter day through vol- 
untary agreements by trades is one to which our 
committee has given considerable attention. In- 
vestigation shows that a great many of the large 
employers of the country would not oppose a scheme 
of that kind. The employer who manufactures hats 
cares nothing about the hours adopted by the em- 
ployer who manufactures sewing machines or vice 
versa. He is concerned only about his competitors 
who manufacture hats. As a business proposition 
he probably would not object to a nine hour or even 
an eight hour day provided it came gradually and 
all of his competitors were on the same basis, and 
provided further the industry was not one where an 
increase in cost of production would destroy it 
through substitution by th'e public of another 
commodity, or where international competition would 
interfere. When the clothing cutters of the United 
States threatened last winter to strike in thirty 
days, unless granted a reduction from nine and a 
half to eight hours per day, Marcus M. Marks, the 
President of the Wholesale Clothing Manufacturers' 
Association, said: "Speaking for myself, I would 
rather seethe clothing business of this country upon an 
eight hour than upon a nine and a half hour basis, 
if it could be brought about gradually and uniformly 
throughout the trade, but a proposition to go to 
eight hours in thirty days is revolutionary and could 
not be considered for a moment. In the first place 
it would call for an increased number of cutters, 
and they could not be obtained, for we can get barely 
enough for our business now. But, if we had the 



248 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

increased number we would have no room for them 
in our factories as now arranged. We also have 
contracts for future delivery which are based on 
the nine and one-half hour schedule. There must 
be plenty of time to adjust to the new condition." 

I will not attempt an argument here either for 
or against a shorter working day, but I have been 
surprised to find the growing sentiment among large 
employers in favor of a shorter working day, pro- 
vided, of course, it would be brought about in a 
business-like way. The superintendent of one of 
the largest plants in this country recently stated 
that while running on a ten-hour basis they found 
it necessary to work three hours and twenty min- 
utes overtime. He said he soon felt it was a mis- 
take, as common experience in manufacturing plants 
demonstrates the fact that after a certain point in 
the working day, no appreciable gain in either the 
quantity or quality of the product is made by increas- 
ing the duration of work. He found the men were 
all fagged out when they came back the next morn- 
ing. He then cut the working day to nine hours, 
and was better satisfied with both the quality and 
quantity of the product. 

As the employees want a shorter working day 
and the employers want an unrestricted output, 
would it not be, a practical proposition to couple the 
two together, making one a quid pro quo of the other? 
In fact that idea was incorporated in the agreement 
made in 1900 between the National Metal Trades 
Association and the International Association of 
Machinists. 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 249 

There were nine hundred and twenty answers to 
this question, six hundred and seven of which said 
"yes" to the proposition, of course with the idea 
that any restriction existing should be given up. 
The idea of combining those two principles in one 
is the idea of the basis of the contract made between 
the National Metal Trades Association, an organiza- 
tion of some five hundred manufacturers, and the 
International Association of Machinists, some year 
and a half ago. While that contract was afterwards 
broken, it did not go to pieces on account of that 
principle. The same idea is contained in the con- 
tracts between the International Typographical 
Union and the American Publishers' Association, 
and also with the Printing Pressmen's organization 
and the Publishers' Association. 

Chairman: Will Mr. Marcus M. Marks, president 
of the National Association of Clothing Manufac- 
turers, kindly address us? 

Mr. Marcus M. Marks: As manufacturing estab- 
lishments grow and grow and finally organize ana 
then become parts of other organizations, the direct 
personal touch between employer and employees is 
gradually diminished. Misunderstandings are more 
likely to arise when the personal element is removed. 
The only solution of the labor problem then lies in 
the "round table." The horns of the labor leader 
and the hoofs of the trust magnate soon disappear 
when labor and capital meet in a friendly discussion 
of the situation. Each one should try to put himself 
in the place of the other. It is usually discovered 



250 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 



after threshing out the situation that they are not so 
far apart as had been expected, on the various ques- 
tions discussed. 

Let me speak from the standpoint of the employer. 
For fifteen years, since I first began to study the 
labor problem practically, I have heard with a thou- 
sand variations the same old song, "the workman 
needs shorter hours," but not once have I heard 
any one say the employer needs shorter hours. 
Strange, when the employer admittedly bears the 
greater burden, the greater care and strain! His re- 
sponsibility continues during the entire time his men 
are actually at work, particularly in the average sized 
concern, where there is close touch between the em- 
ployer and employed. 

He leaves his home early in the morning, often 
without seeing his family ; is at high pressure all day ; 
the telephone, the telegraph and the stenographer 
make the strain of the day greater than heretofore 
by condensing more brain effort into each hour. In 
the evening he comes home to his wife with the rem- 
nants of a tired brain ; his children have retired and 
his refuge is sleep. Is he doing business to live or 
living for his business? 

I plead for shorter hours for the employer; time 
to breathe, to think, to do some good in the world. 
Why, before the average employer has saved a com- 
petence he is a car horse, happy only when the bell 
rings to start him off to trot on the road he is so used 
to. All the higher desires, the better tastes, have 
frequently gone to decay through disuse during the 
years of his entire absorption in the game of business. 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 



251 



Liberal-minded as the employer may be, an argu- 
ment regarding the welfare of his workmen will not. 
affect him as quickly or touch him as deeply as an 
argument showing that his own welfare is concerned. 
For that reason, in my desire to help bring about the 
gradual shortening of the working day, I appeal to 
employers for their own sakes. 

The change must be worked gradually, as conditions 
warrant, by agreement between employers in various 
trades throughout the country, and along the lines 
of least resistance. 

For the employers and for the employees a shorter 
work-day would bring great advantages, the principal 
one being time for education for the higher life, which 
will tend to raise our standard of citizenship and 
better the chances of industrial peace. 

I hope to see the time when employers will take 
the initiative in movements to shorten the working 
hours . ( Applause . ) 

There is an intimate connection between shorter 
hours, unrestricted output, and trade agreement. I 
will give you a practical illustration. 

Several thousand workmen in a branch of the iron 
trade wanted to cut their day from ten to eight hours. 
They promised to do their best and to make it to the 
interest of their employer to inaugurate the change. 
The employer agreed, and the result has been that 
with an eight-hour day, working on the piece plan as 
before, the workmen earn twenty-eight per cent, more 
than they did under the ten- hour system. There are 
two reasons for this increase. First, a man can do 
more per hour in an eight-hour day than in a ten- 



252 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

hour day; and second, the existing restrictions were 
removed when the day was shortened. 

A most flagrant case of restriction was recently 
brought to my attention. Men in an important part 
of a large manufacturing plant were earning $4 a 
day on the piece plan. No one produced more or less 
than that amount daily. For some reason they 
struck, and were replaced by inexperienced men at 
twenty-five per cent, less compensation per piece. 
These new men averaged $9 per day. The proprietor, 
realizing that he had been imposed upon by his former 
workmen, and not wishing to suffer further, cut the 
piece price fifty per cent. The new men were thus 
enabled to earn $4.50 per day, and yet the proprietor 
saved a total of sixty per cent, in this department. 

Another set of workmen, also on piece-work, re- 
stricted their output to $3 per day. This was done 
by resolution of the local union. As the men had 
formerly earned from $3.50 to $4.00 per day, this 
restriction caused them a serious loss. They did not 
love their union. An earnest plea to the union 
leaders to withdraw this $3~a-day law resulted in the 
promise to do so if the proprietor would agree not 
to cut the piece price when the men turned out a 
larger product. Such agreement has since been 
made. 

Restrictions, I think, are caused mainly by the fear 
that the employer will cut the piece price if full 
energy brings the workman's earnings beyond the 
normal. In England this fear is based on sad ex- 
perience. Here comes the connection between re- 
striction of output and trade agreement. The em- 






INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 



253 



ployer who wishes his men to do their best must 
assure them and guarantee them that the piece price 
will not be cut. Then the quick, bright workman 
may safely come to the front, may use the talents 
which nature has given him to improve his condi- 
tion, and get the just reward of industry. 

I do not believe in the " premium " plan. The sur- 
plus output of a worker, beyond the standard, is 
worth just as much as his other work. He should get 
one hundred cents on the dollar for it. (Applause.) 
What right has his employer to go in partnership 
with him on that surplus energy? Who is doing the 
whole work? 

The system that urges rapid, bright workmen to go 
slow and restrict their efforts so as to do no more 
than their fellows whom nature has not favored with 
equal ability, the system which establishes in fact the 
dead level of production, is a curse to our wage- 
earners; it kills hope in the breast of our people, hope 
which alone makes life worth living. It is un- 
American; our free institutions guarantee the right 
to develop our energies and to strive to bring out 
the best that is in us. I appeal to employers to 
assure their men of full compensation for their full 
day's work. I appeal to wage-earners to deliver their 
best efforts each day. The English trade unionists 
who are represented in America to-day, through Mr. 
Mosely's princely generosity, state in positive terms 
that their unions stand for a fair day's work for a 
fair day's pay. They do not stand for the "ca 
canny" or go-slow fiction. Our great American labor 
leaders, also, are frank in their statement that restric- 






254 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 



tions of energy are bad for the wage-earners. They 
should freely spread the news of their convictions to 
the many local unions, some of whose leaders do not 
yet realize the error of restriction. 

Let employers and employees work together to 
bring about the following conditions: shorter hours, 
gradually, as trade warrants; full development of 
energy; a full day's work; a full day's pay. (Great 
applause.) 

A Delegate : I would like to ask Mr. Marks a 
question: In the illustration you used about paying 
the men $9 a day, don't you think it was better for 
them to work for $4.50 a day rather than have the 
manufacturer put out of business? 

Mr. Marks: The manufacturer saved twenty-five 
per cent, by paying $9 a day, besides the additional 
saving in fixed expenses by requiring less men to do 
his work. However, I cited the case to show an 
example of flagrant restriction of output, as well as 
the fear inspired in men in other departments by this 
fifty per cent, cut in the piece price. 

The Delegate: Would not competition in time 
put the firm out of business? 

Mr. Marks: The manufacturer in question had 
been deceived by the employees, who kept their out- 
put down to the $4 mark in the first place. At that 
time he was paying more than market rates for his 
labor, and it was fortunate that he discovered it in 
time. However, as I said before, the $9 rate would 
not put him out of business as quickly as the $4 rate 
would have done. 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 2 55 

Mr. Wilkinson: What kind of a factory was it? 
Was it a cotton goods factory? 

Mr. Marks : It was not a cotton goods factory. I 
prefer not to give the name of the concern now, 
unless there is a very urgent reason. I regret very 
much that the name of the Baldwin Locomotive 
Works was mentioned in this room. When folks 
show us the courtesy which the Baldwins and others 
did in taking us through their works and allowing us 
to inspect every part of their interesting establish- 
ments, I think we should not bring personalities into 
our discussion of the questions raised. (Applause.) 

Chairman Hanna : I now have the pleasure of in- 
troducing to you Mr. Samuel Gompers, president of 
the American Federation of Labor. 

Mr. Gompers: Conscious that a movement of this 
character by which the Civic Federation was formed 
could be of great service to the wage-earner, to the 
employers of labor, I gave whatever assistance it was 
in my power to give in the effort to make its work 
successful. To me a thing is not good or bad simply 
because it exists, or because it is formed, but sim- 
ply by the work that it does, the work that it accom- 
plishes, the good that it secures; and while always 
working for the best I am prepared to meet the worst. 

For that reason I am never much disappointed and 
seldom over elated. The difficulty with some of the 
plans of our industrial department or executive com- 
mittee of the National Civic Federation is — and this, 
I think, applies both to friend or opponent — that 
there is an over anticipation of what it does or can 



2 56 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

do. The promoters of our movement, though, know 
much more has been done than the general public is 
aware of; while, on the other hand, those who look 
askance on the movement say that nothing at all has 
been done, since they started out with the expectation 
that this industrial department of the National Civic 
Federation was going to accomplish the solution of 
the entire industrial, social and economic problem 
simply by its having been called into existence. I 
shall not attempt to state what it can do, what it has 
done — that has been already referred to on several 
occasions and by several of the gentlemen who have 
addressed these gatherings for the past three days; 
of the fact of bringing men together to discuss the 
things in which they are both interested and about 
which they can intelligently speak. We know that 
when men have a difference and are addressing each 
other at long range, they usually drift further apart. 
If a correspondence is the result of their differences, 
men as a rule do not look for the strong points in the 
letter or the intention of the opponent. They look 
for the vulnerable point and make the attack upon 
that vulnerable point, and again they are driven fur- 
ther apart, with much more keenness and bitterness 
entering as a part of the controversy, while, on the 
other hand, when men meet and discuss the things in 
which they are mutually or both of them interested, 
the tendency is to look squarely into a man's eye 
and to read not only that which is upon the surface, 
but that which moves his heart and mind; to pene- 
trate it and to delve down deep into a man's con- 
science and his heart and try to see whether there is 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 



2 57 



not th re some bright spot which can be touched, 
and to bring about the recognition of the mutual re- 
spect to which the other is entitled. We realize that, 
after all, neither of us is as black as we are painted, 
or as we imagine And this is, after all, the greatest, 
perhaps the best, work which the Civic Federation 
can perform. (Applause.) 

If you will permit me, I want, as near as I can, 
to give you cognizance of a few points which have 
been brought out at this conference, and to make a 
running comment on some of the things which I be- 
lieve ought to receive consideration. 

We are all of us interested in the mission in which 
our British friends have come to this country, 
the enterprise of Mr. Mosely, which we admire in 
having the delegation come here. My only regret 
has been that I have been so tied up with the work 
in connection with our movement during their visit 
to our country that I have been unable to render 
them any further material assistance. I have heard, 
however, from our representatives and organizers of 
the American Federation of Labor, and I am pleased 
to be informed by the delegation that the local repre- 
sentatives of organized labor in the various cities and 
towns visited have placed themselves at the disposal 
of the delegation and rendered them every assistance 
within their power. I think that our British trade 
unionists when they go back will have something to 
report of what they have seen, and they will have 
something to report of the differences they have seen, 
and that is the enormous, great contrast which they 
have been led to believe is the condition between the 



258 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

American workingmen and the British workingmen. 
No man is more conscious of the fact of the splendid 
development and advancement that has come into the 
condition of the American working people than I , but 
it is a mistake to believe that that change and that 
differentiation is of such a character, so marked, as 
to appeal to the sense of vision at once. And let 
me say, too, that the very largest part, if not all of 
that improvement, is due to two things: one, to the 
great material wealth of our country, and the second 
and most potent, the organized effort of the wage- 
workers of our country in their trade unions. I am 
sure that no one, I feel confident that no one, would 
take exception to criticism of statement made except 
as we may view differently what we intend to 
convey. 

I understood Mr. Mosely to say that the general 
trend was that men wanted more, were entitled to 
more, than wages, and that if good wages or more 
than mere wages was not granted, they would or- 
ganize and demand it. Now, I don't know exactly 
whether Mr. Mosely made that statement or one of 
the other gentlemen did, whose name I did not catch, 
but at any rate, whether made by Mr. Mosely or by 
another gentleman who followed him, it is a fact, and 
it explains what Mr. Mosely took for an act of philan- 
thropy on the part of some employers within the past 
few months in the United States when they made a 
voluntary increase in wages. It was not philan- 
thropy; it was not of the good will of the employer 
towards the employees, but it is the consciousness of 
the fact that the pendulum in the industrial history 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 259 

of the United States has, for the past few years, swung 
in the direction of prosperity and activity, and that 
the working-people of the United States, who for a 
period of four or five years suffered untold misery as 
a result of industrial stagnation, reduction after re- 
duction of wages, are now determined to get more — 
a larger share out of their production of the wealth of 
our country. 

Mr. Mosely joined with a number of perhaps very 
well-meaning friends in the cry for the "freedom of 
labor"; the right of the workingman to work for 
whom he pleases, for what he pleases, and where he 
pleases. As if the trade union movement was opposed 
to that principle. It is a bugaboo that is raised by 
those who are opposed to our movement or who do 
not understand it. The labor movement does not 
deny a man's legal right to work for whom and when 
and where he pleases, but there is something beside 
and apart from the legal right , and that is, the moral 
obligation. 

A man can, upon the prairie, build himself a hut 
and apply the torch to it. Let him attempt to do 
that in any one of our metropolitan cities and he will 
be arrested and put into jail, for out upon the plain 
he does himself the only injury that is being done, 
but in the city he endangers the life and the property, 
and the peace and tranquility of his neighbors. If 
in the old, old time, a man wanted to sell his labor 
to another under the old and primitive conditions, 
if he desired to accept poor economic conditions as 
the result of his work, he injured no one but himself. 
In our day of highly developed industry, with con- 



2 6o INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

centrated wealth under the direction of the few — or 
comparatively few — the individual workman who at- 
tempts to make a bargain with the directors or the 
representatives of such a directorate simply places 
himself in the position of a helpless, rudderless craft 
on a tempestuous ocean. If he but did himself a 
wrong we might pity him and concede not only his 
legal but his moral right ; but the workman who toils 
for wages and expects to end his days in the wage- 
earning class, as conditions seem to point, it will be 
a necessity, his bounden duty to himself, his family, 
to his fellow-men and to those who are to come after 
him, to join in the union with his fellow-craftsmen 
and fellow-workmen to uphold the standard of life 
and to make joint effort for the uplifting of the craft, 
the wage- workers, and with it the whole social fabric 
of our time and for the time to come. 

I have heard here severe criticism and arraignment 
of the labor movement, the strike and the boycott. 
But I have not heard a word in criticism of the black 
list ; I have not heard a word of the victimization of 
the workingmen; not a word in adverse criticism of 
it. And, gentlemen, when you undertake to criticise 
the faults or what you believe to be the faults of 
labor, it would not be amiss to turn your gaze inward 
to see whether there is not fault on your side. The 
lockout and the black lists are the weapons employed 
against labor. 

For years and years the advocates of trade unions, 
organizations of labor, have stated that the best 
thing that could occur for our movement would be 
the organization of the employers and to meet the 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 261 

organized employers' representatives with the repre- 
sentatives of organized labor. 

One of the gentlemen addressing this conference 
referred to the fact that organizations of labor should 
be met and dealt with, and I agree with that. And 
he suggested that if you are going to fight it at all, 
fight it when it takes its inception into your plant; 
in other words, right it out. I should prefer that you 
do not do anything of the kind. I should prefer that 
our attempts to organize the employees of your 
several factories and plants would meet with your 
cordial approval. But let me say this to you: that 
whether you approve it or disapprove it, we propose 
to organize anyway. (Applause.) And frequently 
the attempts to fight against the organization make 
you our best and most effective organizers. 

One gentleman suggests bonding the union and 
bonding it before arbitration. Incorporate the 
unions so that "we can reach (the funds of) the 
union." A few days ago I had the privilege of ad- 
dressing myself particularly to this subject while in 
the city of Boston, and it seemed then as it seems 
strange to me now, that the gentlemen who dis- 
cussed this proposition avowedly upon the high 
plane of "benefiting the workmen," constantly have 
their eyes upon the few dollars in the treasury of the 
union. A gentleman stated last week to me that the 
unions ought to court just such a thing and that no 
money that the union could expend could be put to 
better advantage than the payment of damages in 
which it might be mulcted by a decision of the court. 
That is one way of putting it, but perhaps, like 



262 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

Claude Melnotte, he thought that , assuming the charac- 
ter of a prince, he ought to be generous with other 
people's property. It is, indeed, strange how many 
gentlemen are solicitous for the trades union to be- 
come incorporated and to be placed within what they 
call the purview of the law in order that it may be 
mulcted in damages for any suit that may be brought 
against the organization. We leave out the oppor- 
tunity for harassing the union by interminable law 
suits. And besides this, the union attacked from 
any and from all sides would be in constant litigation, 
and it is unquestioned that our organizations could 
not attempt to retain counsel, either in numbers or 
in talent, comparable to the counsel which is always 
at the command of wealthy concerns. 

Now, to avoid these interminable litigations, to 
avoid a possible repetition to attempt to do in our 
day or in the near future what was done in the days 
gone by, the confiscation of the funds of the union, 
as was done with the guilds, organized labor is opposed 
to the incorporation of the trades unions. 

Criticism was indulged in in regard to the working- 
people taking advantage of a corporation desirous of 
renewing a franchise — securing a new franchise or a 
new privilege. I do not believe that in the ordinary 
affairs of life men ought to do these things, but 
in the case cited, the Chicago Street Railway, there 
the policy of the company was to discharge any man 
who showed an inkling to join a union, and that 
eighty men — the employees of the company, against 
whom not a word of adverse criticism was made here 
— eighty men were thrown upon the streets because 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 263 

they dared to make the attempt to organize a union ! 
Of course, for a time the spirit to organize was 
crushed out, but the company just then had in view 
the application for a new franchise, a new privilege. 
Can you blame the men when they thus saw their 
opportunity and took advantage of it, and insisted that 
they should have the right to organize, and have better 
pay than the miserable wage that they were receiving, 
and that they should have shorter hours and a better 
arrangement of their trips ? They took advantage of 
the opportunity presented to them. They are deserving 
of our commendation rather than our condemnation. 

It is strange how many panaceas are offered for the 
ills of mankind, and particularly, the ills of our indus- 
trial problem. Compulsory arbitration is but one of 
them. I am exceedingly pleased that upon the plat- 
form of this conference for the past three days no one 
has openly avowed himself as being in favor of com- 
pulsory arbitration. Thank the Lord, we are just a 
few years ahead of that. We have got that behind 
us, and it was through the sturdy fight made by the 
men who understood what that proposition implied, 
that now the atmosphere is clarified and we no longer 
hear of compulsory arbitration. But indirectly, our 
friend Barnes, from England, intimated the possi- 
bility resulting from the adoption of the proposition 
contained in the paper of our friend, Mr. Adams. 

Without attempting to quote literally — because I 
have rather a bad verbal memory — Mr. Barnes stated 
that he favored Mr. Adams' proposition, for he felt 
sure that after one or two attempts, after one or two 
expressions of opinion, that if either the employer 



264 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

or the employee would refuse to abide by the opinion 
expressed, that the defect would be soon supplied. 
And I think, knowing what Barnes believes upon 
that proposition, I have in mind the thought that he 
had in his mind but did not express; the thought 
being that after the enforced investigation was had 
and opinion expressed as to who was right and who 
was wrong, and the failure of the party against whom 
the opinion was expressed to yield a ready willingness 
to comply, that the lawmakers would supply the 
other limb of that tree and clothe such a commission 
with power to decide and compel the obedience of 
either the one or the other side to comply with the 
terms of the award. I want to say, my friends, that 
if a law founded upon the points raised by Mr. 
Adams in his excellent and valuable paper could be 
framed, and the assurance positively felt by the 
people of our country that there would be no step in 
the direction of compulsory arbitration, I should 
gladly give my acquiescence and use what influence 
I may possess to see that there would be compulsory 
investigation and simply an opinion rendered. But 
I, too, know something of the trend of legislative 
effort, and knowing this, I am not inclined to give an 
assent to what might possibly bring about an awful 
condition of affairs, which I know must inevitably 
follow in the wake of compulsory arbitration 

I, with others, deplore the strike of the miners; de- 
plore the necessity for the strike, but after we have 
got through the troubles that are now upon us by 
reason of that strike, by reason of the obstinacy of 
the presidents of the companies, I think that we will 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 265 

all agree that the miners' strike made for the general 
good. It compelled people to think upon this great 
economic and social problem who went on year after 
year living and being dragged through the world 
without consciousness of the struggle that is going 
on. We now understand, or are beginning to learn, 
the more rightful relations that should exist between 
employer and employed; the more rightful relations 
that should exist between man and man. If the 
strike had done nothing more than that, the strike 
of the miners made for the general good. No man 
that has given the question of labor any considera- 
tion will, for a moment, stand before the people as 
an advocate of strikes. No man of reason advocates 
conflict, but there are some things that are worse 
than conflict ; there are some things that are worse 
than, strikes, and among them is a debased and de- 
graded manhood. 

There are times in the history of industry when 
workmen who would refuse to strike would sign them- 
selves as forever bondmen, cowards unworthy the 
name of either American citizens or British subjects. 

Strikes, when unavoidable, are really the cruci- 
bles out of which the industry of humanity emerges 
with renewed vitality and progress and success. 

One would imagine, hearing all the attacks that 
are made upon the one or the other side, that these 
two great powers, these two great empires — the 
United States and Great Britain, were drying up of 
dry rot, instead of which they are the two virile 
nations of the world. Proud, haughty, human, 
humane, considerate — more considerate than any 



266 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

other nation on the face of the globe ; more humane 
in spite of their own faults, against which we protest 
whenever we discover them. They are making the 
fight of to-day and making the fight for to- 
morrow, and meeting the new problems as they con- 
front us and dealing with them, sometimes engaging 
in conflict to eradicate them, but we emerge out of 
them with stronger convictions of the right and with 
a greater and higher determination to do right. In- 
dustrially, commercially, politically, humanely, the 
United States and Great Britain stand at the head of 
the world; and while it is a splendid service which 
we are rendering to our fellows of our own country 
and elsewhere in endeavoring to minimize the con- 
flicts which occur, to avoid them whenever possible, 
I resent the notion or thought which may be lurking in 
the mind of any man, that through the industrial 
struggles through which we are passing, we are not 
making good progress. 

Let me say further that I believe that men engaged 
in a cause must be right. I don't believe that might 
makes right, but I am confident that those who are 
simply right and have no power usually have their 
rights disregarded. So that, with right might is re- 
quired in order to enforce it. 

One of the greatest complaints that I think organ- 
ized labor has to make against employers is the action 
of too many who refuse to recognize the union by con- 
ference with its representatives. We claim that the 
walking delegates, if you please, the business agent, 
or a committee of the union, is the union's counsel. 
Politically, in our governmental affairs, we have 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 



267 



recognized the right to be heard by counsel in any of 
the courts of our country, or our States or munici- 
palities; in every place where our rights are at stake, 
the right to be heard by counsel is a constitutional 
guaranty. Workingmen have more cases in which 
they are interested in the court of industry, where 
their employers are interested, too; and they demand 
the right — the extension of that political right to the 
industrial field — the right to be heard by counsel. 
He who denies that right to wage-earners flies, 
theoretically at least, into the face of the right guar- 
anteed by the constitution of our country and the 
States of our Union. 

I realize that out of all the struggles that come, 
out of this great fight that is being made, there is con- 
flict, but you will usually find resulting from it a 
conference, then a conciliation, and then arbitration 
and agreement. These are the various stages through 
which the industrial struggle passes, but we don't 
want that arbitration unless it is of that order volun- 
tarily entered into, and the awards voluntarily and 
faithfully complied with. 

Now, there is another danger to which Mr. Mosely 
called attention, and he was supported in that by the 
statement of two or three others, and that was, he 
called attention to what he believed to be the danger 
of the American employers consenting to a reduction 
in the hours of labor unless it was general, unless it 
was universal. Now, I want to say to my friend, Mr. 
Mosely, that in that I take issue with him absolutely, 
and those who take sides with him. Are we to wait 
in the United States and in England with us, 



268 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

until Germany and France and Italy and Spain and 
Austria and Russia and several other continental 
European countries — to wait until they shall estab- 
lish the eight-hour working day before we introduce 
it in the United States? We say to you, gentlemen: 
"We thank you for your suggestion; thank you 
for your good intentions, but we cannot follow your 
advice." 

Incidental to that, I want to take cognizance of a 
remark made by my friend Mr. Gunton, last evening 
in connection with that same subject, when he said 
that he had known me for many years, rather favor- 
ably; that he had always agreed with me and that 
he finds himself at odds with me on the eight-hour 
bill which has passed the House of Representatives 
of the United States and is now before the Senate 
Committee on Education and Labor. He said he was 
opposed to that bill because it would result, if enac- 
ted, in establishing the eight-hour day in "spots." 
Now, I appreciate — I am sorry Mr. Gunton is not 
here — I appreciate the friendship of Mr. Gunton as I 
appreciate the friendship of any good man, but simply 
because a man goes wrong or makes a mistake, it is 
not my fault that he is not in accord with me. 
(Laughter.) The fact of the matter is that there 
never yet in the whole world was a great industrial 
reform inaugurated universally. It always has been 
inaugurated in spots. 

Supposing we were to follow the advice as working- 
men and join with the employers of labor in the 
United States in saying that we will not make any 
effort to introduce the eight-hour work-day in the 



IXDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 269 

United States until it becomes universal. Well, per- 
haps Mr. Rockefeller might send a delegation of 
trades unionists of the United States to Great Britain, 
and then we will learn and teach in turn. Then the 
workingmen of the United Kingdom and the working- 
men of the United States, having agreed that they 
are up-to-date, send a delegation overseered by 
Mr. Mosely and Mr. Rockefeller to Germany, and 
then we will undertake to inaugurate a campaign of 
education until we have secured the assent of the 
German manufacturers and the German workingmen. 
And then we will still continue and jointly, the three, 
perhaps, with some successor of Herr Krupp, or some 
other gentleman of that character, will send over a 
delegation to France, and so on and so on. And in 
the meantime little Japan will develop into a great 
industrial country, and then we will have to go to 
Japan, and then we will have to wait until China is 
prepared for the universal eight-hour day. 

I say to you, Mr. Mosely, and gentlemen, that we 
won't wait; we won't wait. We know what a 
shorter work-day means; there is not any man upon 
this floor or anywhere who dares dispute the prop- 
osition that a shorter work-day means better men, 
better workmen; more productive workmen; more 
intelligent workmen; better citizens, better humane 
men. (Applause.) 

And when that is not denied, when that is a uni- 
versal fact, God speed the day of the workingmen of a 
country who shall have the intelligence and fore- 
sight to see that the introduction of the eight-hour 
day is brought about soon. (Applause.) The country 



270 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

that will inaugurate the shorter work-day for labor is 
the country that is going to have the commanding 
influence in the industry of the world. The country 
that lags behind in the movement to reduce the 
hours of labor is the country that will suffer in the 
markets of the world as well as in the deterioration 
of its own people. 

Our friend, Mr. Nixon, referred, and very genially 
and ably, to the eight-hour work-day, and I want to 
say that I agree very largely with him in the same 
things, except that he says he would like to see it 
done by law. Well, we will try to do that by law. 
If we can we will do it upon the economic field by 
agreement with our employers, where we cannot do 
it by law. As a matter of fact, let me call your atten- 
tion to this : During an investigation by the 
House Committee on Labor some few years ago, Mr. 
Cramp, of the Cramp shipyards, stated that in a com- 
petition for the building of a warship for the Russian 
Government, in which the French shipbuilders 
competed, Mr. Cramp undertook the contract to 
build the Russian battleship in just one-half the time 
that the French shipbuilders demanded, and for less 
money. In other words, that the French builders 
wanted five years to build a battleship that Mr. 
Cramp contracted and succeeded in producing within 
two years and a half. 

Now, there is another point I want to touch on, 
a statement made by a gentleman, that he would 
rather see the eight-hour work-day established by 
the law than by trade unions, with all the laws 
upon the statute books of our State and of our 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 271 

country in regard to the hours of labor — as if they 
were better than that of the trade unions. Now 
I should like to inquire of him whether he 
imagines that these laws upon the statute books 
providing for the hours of labor were enacted through 
philanthropy or whether they were enacted through 
the efforts of trades unions ? I wonder whether he can 
imagine the enforcement of any of these labor laws 
unless it was through the organization, the agitation 
and the demands made by the trades unions. As a 
matter of fact, there are some States in which there 
is no law upon the statute books providing for the 
hours of labor, and yet the unions of a number of 
trades have adopted and inaugurated universally 
for that trade an eight-hour work-day. 

In an investigation before the same Committee on 
Labor of the House of Representatives, an employer 
said that the normal life of a machine to which he re- 
ferred was five years, but that in his plant it was 
speeded up to that degree that it seldom lasted more 
than two and a half years. Is it not strange that 
in our country, where per capita the workmen pro- 
duce much greater wealth than do the workmen of 
any other country, that some here, too, indulge in an 
unjustified charge of a "restriction of output?" I 
grant you that, here or there, such a thing may exist, 
as, perhaps, I could point out that here and there 
throughout the country people still make moonshine 
whiskey, and that here and there is one of these 
plague spots known as Chinatown, but no one would 
attempt, in speaking of American conditions, to refer 
to these as typical. The fact is that in the United 



272 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 



States, for all practical purposes, there is no limitation 
on the output of labor, but we have insisted that 
there shall be a reduction in the hours of labor, so 
that there may be better opportunities for our mental 
and physical development, and for the enlargement of 
every capacity of which we are capable. 

I want to speak of our friend, Mr. Barbour, who 
says that he opposes the eight-hour bill, and one of 
the most potential reasons that he gave was that we 
are enjoying prosperous times and he was one of 
those who believed in "letting well enough alone." 
Well, I want to ask Mr. Barbour, or any other sane 
man, when does Mr. Barbour expect that the hours 
of labor shall be reduced ? When we are working too 
much or when we have no work at all to do? Does 
he expect that we shall advocate a reduction in the 
hours of labor when the working-people of our 
country are generally unemployed? The very state- 
ment carries upon its own face its absurdity. It is 
because of the fact that we are running pell-mell and 
producing haphazard without regard to results, with- 
out stimulating or encouraging the consuming power 
of the working-people, the great masses of the people, 
that the danger confronts us. Produce! Produce! 
Produce! is the cry we hear. We need to cultivate 
the power of consumption and use among the work- 
ing-people if we hope to carry on the great era of in- 
dustry and prosperity which we now enjoy. Other- 
wise you will keep on producing, producing, pro- 
ducing, and the storehouses will be filled and the 
channels of industry will be choked, and then will 
come what some gentleman mistakenly called a finan- 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 



273 



cial crisis, but which, indeed, is an industrial stag- 
nation. 

Even Mr. Barbour could not leave the charge un- 
made of a limitation of work and limitation of output, 
in that he said that the American workingmen would 
get into their shops and their factories five minutes 
after the whistle blows and get to " washing up" five 
minutes before twelve; and then come in five min- 
utes after one, and then wash up again five minutes 
before the whistle blows for the shutdown of the day. 
He said that he might consent to the nine-hour day, 
he might consent if the workmen would make up 
their minds to eliminate those five minutes and then 
work harder. Work harder! 

Who among the men have observed the way 
the working people of our country toil, the industry 
with which they work; who among the employing 
class, who have observed their own employees and 
the workers in other industries, but have been struck 
with the great velocity and intensity with which 
the toilers of our country work. If they doubt it, 
let them watch the men who come from any part 
of the world to the United States and put them to 
work in any industry and you will find, as many 
of them have said to me when working, "Why, I 
have simply become dazed with the rapidity with 
which my shopmates have worked." Work harder! 
Work harder! Work harder! My heavens, it re- 
minds me very much of what a friend of mine some- 
times said and which struck me as very apt, when 
he said that it seemed some men believed that they 
were put on earth not only to work but to be worked, 






274 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 



and that inasmuch as they were but a very short 
time on earth, for heaven's sake, work him harder; 
you don't know when he is going to drop off. (Laugh- 
er.) The idea of suggesting that the American men 
work harder! (Laughter and applause.) 

Well, we are going to do our duty, and I want to 
say to you gentlemen that there are no men in the 
world who are more impressive in the lesson that 
they desire to teach their fellow workers than are 
the men — mistakenly called the labor leaders of our 
country — who try more to impress upon the minds 
of labor and union men the necessity of doing a 
good, thorough hard day's work. When a man who 
is always pleading and demanding that the working 
men of our country shall work harder, and knows 
no other policy, and knows no other relief, well, I 
simply want to enter my emphatic protest. That 
is all. 

We believe in the organization of labor, and we 
are not ranting against trusts and corporations as 
such. As citizens and men each has his own view 
and does just as he pleases ; his is the responsibility 
to himself and to his conscience and to his country. 
That is what his duty is, but to a wage earner and 
to a union man there are good trusts or corporations 
and there are bad trusts. To us as unionists they 
are employers of labor, and they are either good, 
bad or indifferent. 

My friends, we believe that the organizations of 
labor are moving in the right direction, trying to 
bring the workers within the fold, not by force, but 
by moral suasion and by interest trying to bring 






INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 275 

the wage earners within the purview and influence 
of the trades union movement, and trying to make 
the men in our trade unions careful of their interests 
and of the interests of their fellow workers and 
their fellow citizens; conscious of the responsibility 
that devolves upon them to instill manhood, dignity, 
independence and fraternal and humane regard for 
the considerations and interests of others, and to 
move along the lines, not of revolution, but of evolu- 
tion ; not to borrow trouble, but to prepare for it; 
not to be carrying the chip of defiance upon their 
shoulders, but to be always organized and prepared 
to resist an invasion of their rights or the imposition 
of a wrong. To continually work for a better life, 
for a higher wage, for a reduction in the hours of 
their daily labor, until a normal workday may be 
reached. To be honest and faithful as men and 
as citizens, and to try to bring as we now find in our 
country, a democracy, a sovereignty of our people 
politically, so we may inaugurate a greater degree 
of democracy in industry, in which the workers shall 
have a full voice in determining the better condi- 
tions under which labor shall be performed and 
industry carried on and developed to the highest 
pitch of possible success. (Prolonged applause.) 

Mr. Mosely: I have listened with great pleasure 
to Mr. Gompers' speech, and I agree with very much 
that he has said. It has been a very forcible speech, 
but as Bismarck remarked: "Force is not necessarily 
an argument." I will, first of all, refer to the eight- 
hour day, in connection with which my name has 






276 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

been mentioned. I may say that in theory I am ab- 
solutely in favor of an eight-hour movement, but in 
practice I am not sure that it is possible at present. 
Mr. Gompers referred to my statement that it was 
necessary to bring all workers into line, which is 
quite true. I made that remark. But when I re- 
ferred to all workers, I didn't mean Kamschatka or 
the Fiji Islands. I referred especially to the great 
industrial nations — the United States, England and 
Germany. 

I have been a man who has been connected with a 
large variety of businesses; I have studied economics, 
and I do not hesitate to tell the workingman in this 
room that if he is going to attempt to introduce an 
eight-hour movement before he has got the working- 
men of those three industrial countries into line, he is 
assuredly going to make trouble for himself — and you 
have too many workmen at present in the United 
States to support its industries. The United States 
formerly was essentially an agricultural country. 
Within the last few years it has passed from that 
stage to the industrial. You have built large fac- 
tories; your inventing genius has created great ma- 
chinery. You require an outlet outside of the United 
States for your products, and if you are going to 
attempt to work eight hours while the rest of the 
industrial world — I refer particularly to the United 
Kingdom and Germany — are going to work ten, you 
will surely be bringing about a bad state of affairs 
which will precipitate a crisis. I say that I am pre- 
pared to stand by that statement. Set to work and 
it is not a difficult thing to bring the Anglo-Saxon 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 277 

workmen into line. It requires no mere Rockefeller, 
no mere millionaire. You have your own trade or- 
ganizations; let them send their delegations to 
England and Germany and attempt to interest the 
bigger minds in trades unionism in that great idea. 
I don't think it is difficult if you can set about it in 
the right way. I warn you to set about that first, 
before you introduce an eight-hour movement. 

Mr. Gompers also referred to the unions versus free 
labor, with regard to what he thought my views on 
the subject were. I am a union man, and I stated 
publicly that I am a union man, because I believe 
the unions are making for a better state of things; 
because I believe that it is owing to the action of the 
unions that the men are now, both in the United 
Kingdom and in the United States, receiving the wages 
they are getting to-day. But there is a limit to the 
way in which unionism shall be allowed a free hand. 
They have not the whole of the workmen enrolled. 
Thero are, in the United States and in other places, 
men who venture to think — I don't say rightly or 
wrongly — who venture to think that unionism has 
done harm, and it is in regard to those who differ in 
opinion to ourselves that I say a free voice should be 
given. 

Unionism is good, in my opinion — others may differ 
with me. There must be free and unencumbered 
right among the workers to unionize if they please; 
there must be an equally free right among those 
who differ from us to work and sell their labor as they 
please. (Applause.) 

It has been remarked by Mr. Gompers, or rather, 



278 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

an object-lesson was given by him, that the workers 
who wished to sell their labor in the free market were 
very much in the position of the man who, having 
built a house, decided to destroy it by fire. I take 
exception to that example; I don't think it is a fair 
one. I think it could be equally well argued by the 
free labor advocate that the man who sought to 
combine was in the exact position of the man who 
sought to sell his free labor. I can only think that 
there must be equal freedom on both sides, if there 
is to be any true progress and any equality. 

The black list was referred to by Mr. Gompers. I 
mentioned nothing about the black list, but I will 
say this in regard to it : I think the unions are strong 
enough to take care of themselves and to protect the 
interests of the men who have been so-called black- 
listed. I am heartily in sympathy with the unions 
in taking up the cudgels for those men who have 
been discharged, if they think that that discharge has 
been unjust. I am perfectly in sympathy with that, 
and I don't think there are many employers of labor 
who will take another view. Anyway, if there are, 
they don't count; they don't represent the intelligent 
employers of any country. 

Now, that is all I have to say with regard to the 
three points concerning which Mr. Gompers used my 
name; there are one or two questions that referred 
to the discussions of yesterday that I wish now to 
address Mr. Gompers about, and they are these: I 
will take them in rotation — there are only two. 

Speaking of the Baldwin Locomotive Works, I re- 
gret exceedingly that there should have been any 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 



279 



name mentioned. Mr. Barnes, with one of my dele- 
gates, mentioned a factory in which he thought the 
conditions were abominable. It ultimately trans- 
pired that he referred to the Baldwin Locomotive 
Works. Let me say that I don't agree with the re- 
marks that have fallen from the two gentlemen with 
regard to those works. I do not believe it would be 
possible for many thousands of men to be working 
contentedly for years if those conditions prevailed. 
There is one point I would like to ask Mr. Gompers 
for information. I have made some inquiries during 
the last twenty-four hours since their name has been 
dragged into prominence, and I am told that those 
who are responsible for the works, who are in 
charge as foremen and in other high places of 
authority, even the partners, are men who have 
risen from the ranks. Now, is that true or is it not, 
that condition of affairs? If it is true I think that 
it says a great deal for their system, that has allowed 
the men to come from absolutely the bottom of the 
ladder to the top and run those great works. They 
are non-union, but because they are non-union I 
don't think it is fair to attack them. If non-unionism 
means that men can rise from the bottom of the 
ladder to the top in a great concern of that sort, I 
think it says a great deal in favor of non-unionism, if 
that is the result universally. It may be, however, 
only an isolated instance. 

But there is another point with regard to these 
gentlemen being partners and organizers and respon- 
sible for the conduct of those works, and I don't 
know whether it struck our friend. Those remarks, 



2 8o INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

it seems to me, look like throwing mud at themselves, 
because if it is true that these are the men, the work- 
men who are responsible for this state of things, it is 
the workmen themselves who, having been put into 
these positions, are oppressing their brother workmen, 
and I don't think it sounds well that the workman of 
this country, when he rises rapidly, will use his power 
to oppress the others. If that is the case, I say let 
us have the millionaire; let us have the capitalist — 
because he doesn't do so. (Applause.) I shall like 
to ask if it is true that largely or more largely those 
responsible for the Baldwin Locomotive Works have 
risen from the ranks? 

The second point, to which I should like to ask Mr. 
Gompers to answer as one who is responsible for the 
organized labor of this country, is with regard to the 
apprentices. I may be very dull, as I have not yet 
elicited an answer, at least not what appears to me 
to be an intelligible answer, as to the apprentices. 
What I want to know is: Is it the employer who is 
responsible for the number of apprentices, or is it 
the unions who are responsible for the number of 
apprentices, or is it a matter of mutual understanding 
between the employer and employee. I should cer- 
tainly like definite information upon that point. 

Mr. Gompers: Of course, if the United States and 
Great Britain and Germany were to move forward 
and develop industrially, and the other nations of the 
earth remain in absolute status and no change in 
them occur industrially, the position taken by Mr. 
Mosely would be justified. But, whether he likes it 
or not, whether we like it or not, though France and 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 



281 



Austria and Italy and Spain and Russia may not 
make as fast a progress industrially as do the three 
other nations you have named, Mr. Mosely, yet 
depend upon it that they are making industrial prog- 
gress and will make greater industrial progress, and 
the nearer we get to the shorter work- day, the nearer 
they may be to us . It may not be known generally , but 
when the hours of labor are, say from fourteen to 
sixteen hours a day, they are not reduced to thirteen 
and fourteen, but as a rule they are reduced imme- 
diately, whenever a change occurs, either to twelve 
or eleven or nearly ten. I doubt that there is an 
industry to which any gentleman here can refer in 
which that has not been the case, when there have 
been exceedingly long hours of labor, as I tried to 
indicate, fourteen, fifteen, sixteen, and in some in- 
stances eighteen hours a day, that when a reduction 
has come about, it has been to about twelve, eleven, 
sometimes ten and one-half or ten. And what is true 
in the industries in the United States is equally 
true in the particular case I have cited in the indus- 
tries of the whole world. Wherever you may find 
working-people in Europe or in any other country, 
where they change their hours of labor, it is to 
twelve or to eleven or to ten, and in that same degree 
that we shall move for a reduction in the hours of 
labor for the United States and Great Britain — be- 
cause I think Great Britain is pretty close to us — 
you will find that the same reduction in the hours of 
labor will come in Germany and a corresponding re- 
duction in the hours of labor in France and Austria. 
You cannot wait. My friend may think that that is 



282 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

"force" — it is simply "emphasis" — that is all. 
(Laughter.) I cannot help the manner of emphatic 
statement any more than my friend, Mosely, can be 
absolutely deliberate and apparently without feeling. 

Let me add this: My friend Mosely may theorize 
as much as he pleases, but we are not going to wait; 
we will prove to him, as we have demonstrated to 
others in the past, that a reduction in the hours 
of labor does not mean injury, industrially or com- 
mercially, or in any other way, but that it means the 
very reverse. The whole history of the movement 
to reduce the hours of labor is full of proof of that fact, 
and I might cite, as proof, the case of Great Britain 
and the United States, which are the two great 
countries of the world that command the markets 
of the world as compared with any other two coun- 
tries — the United States and Great Britain, sending 
our product all over the world, while working less 
hours in those two countries than in any other country 
in the world. 

In regard to the Baldwin Locomotive Works, I 
feel that it was very unfortunate that the name was 
mentioned here, and I will give you my reasons. 
Apart from any other considerations the employers 
of America have at all times been very kind to place 
us in possession of facts and opportunities, and 
have thrown open their factories to the delegation 
which Mr. Mosely brought over, and that fact in 
itself ought to have been regarded as sufficient to 
have prevented the name of any house being men- 
tioned which extended the courtesy of opening its 
doors to visitors. And I want to sav that as far as 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 283 

that particular establishment is concerned, I only 
knew of certain things from other men who have 
worked there for the purpose of securing the in- 
formation. I am speaking of the conditions there, 
and I think Mr. Mosely and I should prefer reallv 
that the particular case be dropped, and wish that 
it might be expunged from our memories as well 
as from the records. 

I do not want to indulge in any particular case. 
I don't think it is right ; it is hardly fair to the people 
of that company I want to tell you candidly that 
if I could organize them, the men in that plant. 
I would do it in a minute, with the consent of the 
Baldwin Company, and as I said, I would organize 
them in spite of the company if I could do so. But 
I don't want to drag them into a discussion before the 
public, which is profitless after all. 

In regard to the matter of apprentices I want to 
say that the division of labor, its sub-division in the 
United States, and its classification, are going on to 
that degree that one scarcelv can believe, unless he 
makes a thorough investigation of it, so that by 
entering into a factory he might be there for a week 
or month. In a month he will know perhaps 
the branch of the business as much as he will know 
it in a year or in two or three years. He may be- 
come more adept, as it were, at it, but he will know 
just about as much of it. And for that reason I 
should say that in those trades there is seldom 
in the matter of apprentices any difficulty. We 
have such an immense number of what are known 
as "helpers" and "handymen," who are limitless 



284 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

in number. In some trades which yet retain some 
vestige of organization there is a regulation of the 
apprenticeship system, and that is reached by 
an agreement by conference, an agreement with em- 
ployers. 

Now, I want to say this: I don't want you for a 
moment to imagine that the union always agrees 
with the employer that his judgment is right or as to 
what he is willing to do, for very often we only know 
what the employer is willing to do after we have put 
him to the test. It is all the difference in the world 
between what he says he is willing to do and what 
the conditions demonstrate he is willing to do. I 
don't know whether I have answered the question 
fully, but I have tried to do so. 

Mr. Mosely: It is still not at all clear to me how 
you arrive at it; is it through the employer, is it 
through the union or by joint agreement? 

Mr. Gompers: Usually by joint agreement; and 
I will add this — I want to be fair — that the agreement 
is very often reached after a contest. (Laughter.) 
It is then only that we really learn what the em- 
ployer can really give. (Laughter.) 

Archbishop Ireland: This question of freedom 
of labor is a matter of considerable importance and 
we should understand one another. Mr. Gompers 
seemed to distinguish and did distinguish between 
the legal right of each one to sell his labor and the 
moral right. Well, admitting the distinction and 
saying that the union did not deny the legal right 
but did deny the moral right, I would ask whose 
business is it — the business of the State or the busi- 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 285 

ness of unions or of individuals to enforce what 
they believe to be the moral right ? 

For instance, the unions believe that independent 
workers have not the moral right to sell their labor 
in opposition to the union labor. They believe that 
it is wrong for non-union laborers to sell their labor 
in opposition to the union laborers. Very well. 
Admit that for argument sake. Will the union be 
willing to leave to the State the enforcement of the 
punishment of moral wrong on the part of non- 
union laborers, or will the union take it in their own 
hands to discourage moral wrong and prevent 
non-union laborers from selling their labor? (Ap- 
pluse.) The enforcement of that is a question as 
to which you could, Mr. Gompers, possibly clarify 
the atmosphere. 

Mr. Gompers: Every association, when forced, 
establishes for itself a system of ethics. Whether 
that association be that of religion, of law, of med- 
icine, of any of the other sciences, or of industry and 
of commerce; and each for itself uses every legal 
power that it has to enforce what it believes to be 
its legal and moral right. Trade unionism and the 
labor movement do exactly that thing. So far as 
their legal right is concerned they exercise every 
legal right that they have, infringing on no other 
man's legal rights, but undertaking to establish 
for themselves, as every other institution on earth 
establishes for itself, an ethical code, and that code it 
seeks to enforce by every legal and moral right. 

I hope I have now made myself clear. 

Archbishop Ireland: I think I understand 



286 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

Mr. Gompers. Of course every association has the 
right to establish its own code of ethics, that is true. 
For instance, every church establishes its own creed, 
or rather puts forth a creed that is its own, but not 
every church has the right to go out in the streets 
and the public places and say: "If you don't come 
to my code of ethics, well, I'll fix you." (Laughter.) 

I believe that unions have the right to say, to 
believe, to hold as their doctrine, that it is wrong 
for non-union men to sell their labor, as it were, 
in opposition to union men, but then — and I believe 
with Mr. Gompers — that the union men have the 
right to take all legal means to keep the non-union 
men out. But would such means as are sometimes 
practiced — threatening and making it impossible 
to live almost if they come into work, in other words, 
punish them, be in accordance with this code of ethics? 
Now, the State, if it is a moral wrong, the State is 
the party to punish moral wrong. The individual 
may believe that another is doing a moral wrong, 
but he has no right to punish him. The association 
may believe others are doing what is a moral wrong, 
but the association cannot in any way punish them 
The State alone has the authority to enforce the 
law, hence, I hope that whatever the rights of the 
unions are and however they may by persuasion 
strive to persuade non-union men coming in to 
sell their labor in opposition to the unions, still I 
hold that they cannot interfere physically or in any 
moral way that would be equivalent to physical 
force in keeping out non-union labor. If they do 
they erect themselves into a police tribunal, into 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 287 

a legal tribunal. They would take into their own 
hands, in other words, the authority of the State. 
That is the point. I did not mean to say that all 
moral suasion could not be used to keep out non- 
union labor, but anything approaching physical 
force, or intimidation which would be equivalent 
to physical force, is wrong. 

Mr. Gompers: I dislike very much to appear 
even to differ with Archbishop Ireland. We 
know how we all have had the highest regard for 
him. I think that the difference is rather more 
apparent than real. I don't know of any organi- 
zation or any labor man that will justify a union, 
or a union man going out and saying to anybody 
who disagrees with the union or pursues a different 
course, "I will fix you." Any such thing would be 
an illegal threat, an improper threat. I differ- 
entiate the proper and the improper threat. For 
instance, any man has the right to threaten me that 
he won't speak to me. If he has the right to refuse 
to speak to me he has the right to threaten that he 
won't speak to me. The word "threat" has been 
used so often that we are likely to be misled by 
what it really means and what is intended by it. 

Organized labor is opposed to physical force or 
even the semblance of it. We don't want it; we 
don't rely on it. That is not the enforcement I 
had in mind when I gave an affirmative answer as 
to the right of the organization to enforce its mora] 
code — not physical force, nor anything that smatters 
of it. We have the right, however, to say to those 
with whom we do not care to associate, that we do 



288 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

not wish to speak to them. That is a privilege 
accorded to every citizen and a right which we take 
to ourselves. 

Archbishop Ireland: I think we rather agree. 
Realty, under that plea the treatment which would 
be awarded by union labor to non-union labor would 
be pretty liberal. If you only say to them, "We 
don't want to speak to you," (Laughter) that of 
course clears up a great deal, because I did myself 
hear in public that any physical or moral intimida- 
tion, which is equivalent to physical force, would be 
construed in such actions as picketing, if they see 
that non-union men are going in, and then pull 
them out and say to them, "If you do go we don't 
know what will happen." 

As to the moral aspect of the question, I am sure 
that from a certain standpoint the unions can well 
undertake to say that there is something immorally 
wrong in men trying to pull down labor and to keep 
labor down to such a condition that it will be poorly 
paid, etc. Still, of course, we must bear in mind 
that there are other aspects of the non-union cause, 
and that we at least should be willing to give free- 
dom of opinion and to say that, while unions have 
the right to say that it is morally wrong for non- 
union men to sell their labor, still, the non-union 
men have the right to believe that it is not mor- 
ally wrong. It would be in other words an open 
question, and each party may use of course moral sua- 
sion, in order to bring the other to his way of thinking. 

Mr. 0. C. Barber: I am speaking, perhaps, from 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 289 

the Standpoint of a manufacturer or an employer 
of labor. As I have followed the arguments and 
papers read by the different speakers, this one 
thought has occurred to me : 

Has the strength of the position of America in the 
markets of the world, and in the home markets, 
been derived by the assistance furnished by the 
trade unions? The disposition of the people to 
organize, from the lowest labor organization to the 
highest organization of capital, is a very natural 
one, but as my recollection takes me over that period 
of the greatest prosperity of America, it does not 
seem to me that that prosperity has been achieved 
by labor unions, but that it has been achieved by 
men of strength, coming from the shop in all branches 
of business, who have aimed at a high standard. I 
would like to ask if that standard means high stand- 
ard of hours of work, or of hours of play? Man gets 
all he produces from nature by labor, therefore, 
the laborer is worthy of his hire, but if he wants 
much he must work much. If his wants are prim- 
itive, as they were in olden times, he can spend his 
time in hunting. In primitive times he did not 
have all the comforts that the home furnishes to-day. 
His life was primitive — he dwelt in the forest, where 
nature showed him that the fittest survived. The 
great tall trees got their strength from the ground; 
the lower limbs fell off, and the old trunk kept 
growing up and up, and dominated. In the life 
of man as well as in the life of the forest the same 
principle prevails and governs: "The survival of the 
fittest." 



2 go INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

Now, if you so organize your trade unions that 
they are the fittest way of handling the labor of the 
country and increasing the production of the country, 
and making the country able to compete in the 
markets of the world, then you will have done well, 
but to-day the supremacy of the United States and 
her manufactories over that of any other country, 
the most civilized country, comes not from trade 
unions, but from the genius and efforts that have 
been made by the individual man. 

The trade unions do not better his position, as 
now organized, or increase his productive power. 
There is a great clearing house that you will all 
have to account to in these transactions. If you 
want the great position that America has acquired 
in the markets of the world, and in the commerce 
of the world, you must continue along the lines of 
the "survival of the fittest," but if you commence 
and organize your labor on the principle of force, 
you will find that prices of commodities will go up 
equally with the price of your labor, and in the 
clearing house the balance may be against you, and 
wages which you think you have increased will have 
been diminished in their purchasing power. You 
may force your wages so high and so reduce the 
hours of labor, that in this clearing house your 
markets will slip away from you, and the labor 
that you were so dependent upon will have been lost 
in the competition that you yourself, through organ- 
ization, have created. 

I know something of England and the conditions 
that prevail there. I have been there on two sep- 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 2 9I 

arate occasions when great industries were pros- 
trated by what we call strikes. Where the labor 
unions dominated, and had dominated to such an 
extent that the products produced from their labors 
could not be marketed in the markets of the world 
by England, and per force, the people engaged in 
these industries were obliged to fight the union to a 
finish that they might even retain their home trade. 
I refer to the strike, first, of the engineers, where 
the manufacturers were unable even to control the 
machines in their own factories, the whole business 
being dictated by trade unions. 

I refer also to the shoemakers' strike, where the 
unions kicked against progress and against the in- 
troduction of labor-saving machinery, and 250,000 
shoemakers went out on a strike. I was there at 
the time of this strike, and the arguments that they 
brought forth, the force that they proposed to in- 
troduce in boycotting and against scabbing, so- 
called, were both disgusting and revolutionary, and 
had the effect to kill the industry for a long time. 
While the strike was pending American and Ger- 
man shoes entered the market and so filled up the 
markets that when the shoemaker was ready to go 
back to work he found his vocation gone for several 
months, and they have been laboring under the dis- 
advantages of that strike ever since. I say to you, 
gentlemen, that I think the days of prosperity have 
passed away, in an industrial sense, for England, and 
largely on account of the trade unions, who have 
so thoroughly dominated all parts of Britain. 

I have listened to the greatest tribute paid to 



292 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 



non-union labor, by Mr. Gompers, this morning, in 
his speech — a much greater tribute than he has 
paid to union labor. That tribute referred to the 
success of the Cramps in securing the building of 
the Russian battleships, by competition in the 
markets of the world. The Cramps were enabled 
to procure this work because they were able to 
produce the work at as low a price and in shorter 
time than any of the other ship-builders. 

Mr. Gompers (interrupts) : I made no such state- 
ment, and I wish to correct the last speaker, and 
to say that what I said was this — that the ship-yards 
of France were the ones I referred to, and the ship- 
yards of America. It was a competition between 
the ship-builders of France and the ship-builders 
of the United States. 

Mr. Barber: Between the two countries then? 
But I have reason to know that the business was 
thrown open to the world for competition, and 
the Cramps of America were able to produce the 
work in half the time that any of the ship-yards of 
France could produce it, and on a competitive basis 
in price, and it was largely due to the Cramps being 
in a position where they could control and get out 
of their labor the maximum amount of work for 
the hours employed. 

I do not think this hour question has much to do 
with the real problems at issue. In the Cramp 
ship-yards there were employed thousands of people 
on a non-union and competitive basis — on a basis 
of the "survival of the fittest" in their particular 
branch of business — the machinist in his — the 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 2 93 

carpenter in his — the blacksmith in his, the 
riveter in his, and so on, and the Cramps paid them 
for their work according to their ability to produce, 
and in that way they got the contract, and in that 
way America has been reaching out in the markets 
of the world in different lines of production. 

As I said before, we have to account to the great 
clearing house of conditions, and before you under- 
take, arbitrarily, anything, it will be well for you to 
study the conditions. The closer you sail along the 
way of the least resistance, and follow nature's laws 
instead of trade union laws, as now constituted, the 
greater will be results and your prosperity. The 
cheaper will your homes be built and the comforts 
that you put in them. All things come from labor, 
therefore the laborer can produce what is needed in 
proportion as he labors. Let labor be free. Let the 
legal labor day be eight hours, if you so wish, but 
do not force the man who has the energy and ability 
to work ten hours, to work less. Give him freedom. 
You must, of necessity, work along highly competi- 
tive lines. It is nature's law, and while you work 
together, do not interfere with those laws, but follow 
the lines of least resistance and you will get the best 
results. 

The Chairman : The next speaker is Mr. Frederick 
Driscoll, Commissioner of the American Newspaper 
Publishers' Association. 

Mr. Frederick Driscoll: We have assembled 
here to-day to learn what progress has been made in 
the establishment of policies and the accomplishment 



294 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 



of experiences which have tended to promote in- 
dustrial peace, public interest in which has been 
greatly increased by the stirring history of the past 
year. 

Upon request, I appear before you as the represen 
tative of the American Newspaper Publishers' Asso- 
ciation, to briefly relate what has been done by our 
organization, to maintain friendly relations with the 
labor unions with which we have to deal. 

Our association, comprising about two hundred of 
the leading daily newspapers of the United States and 
Canada, was organized for mutual benefit in 1897. 
For many years it took no positive action on the 
subject of labor. During the closing years of the 
last decade a number of our publishers had suffered 
from a severe experience with strikes, notable among 
which may be noted the instance in Chicago, in 
1898, when the stereotypers struck on the eve of the 
great naval battle of Santiago. All the papers in 
Chicago united in closing their offices, and no news- 
paper was issued in that great city for four days 
during the most intense news excitement of the 
Spanish War. The losses to the publishers of Chi- 
cago resulting from this famous strike have been 
estimated to amount to more than a quarter of a 
million dollars. The publishers finally manned their 
offices with outside stereotypers and the strike failed. 
In December, 1899, the Typographical Union of 
Pittsburg declined to complete its labor contract at 
a time when it had but a week to complete the term 
contracted for. Seven daily papers united in resist- 
ance, and a struggle of three months' duration en- 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 



295 



sued, involving boycotts and the usual disturbance. 
At the end of that time the union gave up the struggle 
and the strike was lost. 

In February, 1900, at the publishers' annual con- 
vention, the subject of labor was taken up. Resolu- 
tions were unanimously adopted to appoint a per- 
manent special standing committee to take charge of 
all labor matters affecting generally the publishers of 
our association. Authority was also given this com- 
mittee to appoint a commissioner who should devote 
his whole time to this important work. 

The committee then issued a circular, which con- 
tained the following paragraph; 

"This committee feels charged with the sacred task 
of settling disputes whenever possible and, to that 
end, will labor to secure the establishment of joint 
national arbitration committees to adjust labor 
troubles between members and their employees that 
cannot otherwise be settled. 

"The committee was not appointed to provoke 
controversies or to antagonize labor, but on the con- 
trary, to promote a better understanding between 
members and their employees. The services of the 
committee and its commissioner will be at the dis- 
posal of any member of the association." 

The commissioner was appointed and an office 
opened in Chicago, on April 1, 1900 Various statis- 
tics were gathered, and it was found that between 
eighty and eighty-five per cent, of the members had 
union offices in one or more of their departments. 

In August, 1900, the commissioner appeared before 
the annual convention of the International Typo- 



296 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

graphical Union, and in a short address urged it to 
join with our association in establishing a plan of 
arbitration for the settlement of all disputes which 
could not otherwise be settled. Authority was given 
the executive council to do so, and in the following 
November our committee and this council held a 
prolonged conference, which resulted in the formation 
of a tentative plan, to last, if approved, for one 
year, from May i, iqoi. This plan was unanimously 
endorsed by our association in February, 1901, and 
was then submitted to the referendum of the Inter- 
national Typographical Union. The vote resulted in 
12,544 in favor and 3,530 against the adoption of the 
plan. Thus intelligent labor formally approved the 
principle of arbitration by a vote of nearly four to 
one. 

The arbitration agreement in accordance with the 
plan was then executed by both organizations in- 
terested. This agreement provided that in case any 
publisher of our association should bind himself to 
arbitrate any difference arising under his verbal or 
written contract with the union, the International 
president would then guarantee the complete per- 
formance of the contract ; and also that the local 
union would arbitrate all differences which might 
arise incident thereto. A form of contract was pre- 
pared, which was to be executed by the president of 
the International Typographical Union and the pub- 
lisher, which contract embodied all the provisions 
contained in the agreement with the American News- 
paper Publishers' Association. The experiment was 
for one year only. During this time but one case 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 297 

came before the national board of arbitration, which 
was composed of the International president and the 
Association's commissioner, who, if they could not 
agree, should choose a third party to determine the 
dispute. This case was decided in favor of the Union. 

In August, 1 90 1, I appeared again at Birming 
ham, Ala., before the International Typographical 
Union Annual Convention, and asked that authority 
be granted the executive council to extend the term 
and broaden the scope of the existing arbitration 
agreement. This was granted, and in January last, 
at a joint conference, the new agreement was framed 
and a period was fixed for five years, from May 1, 
1902. The scope of the new agreement was ex- 
tended to cover the settlement of disputes which 
might arise in framing new scales as to wages and 
hours of labor. This was a distinct advance upon 
the previous agreement, for there is always more 
danger of trouble and differences arising, in forming 
a new scale, than in performing a current contract. 
We believe now that very great progress has been 
made in securing the continuous and peaceful prose- 
cution of work in our offices. For obvious reasons 
this is more important in the publication of a daily 
newspaper than in almost any other branch of busi- 
ness. 

During the year 1902 there have been settled on the 
part of members of the National Arbitration Board 
by conciliation or arbitration, labor differences in 
Toronto, Saratoga Springs, St. Louis, Springfield, 111., 
two cases in New York, and one in Boston, Mass. 
In all but one of these cases the matter settled per- 



298 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

tained to new scales. A great many more cases have 
been settled locally, without the aid of the national 
board, by reason of the fact that the publisher had 
an arbitration contract with the International Typo- 
graphical Union. 

This organization has jurisdiction over the Typo- 
graphical, Stereotypers', Mailers', and Photo-En- 
gravers' Unions. It can enforce its discipline even to 
the extent of revoking the charters of these subor- 
dinate unions. No strike can take effect or be legal 
until the same is ordered by the International Typo- 
graphical Union Executive Council. I can most 
cheerfully testify to the honor and good faith which 
has characterized the International government in 
the multiplicity of business which we have transacted 
with them. It is for the welfare of their crafts that 
the governing organization should be faithful to its 
obligations, and I am sure its guarantee can be de- 
pended upon as well as though it was incorporated 
and was otherwise financially responsible. 

As the peaceful operation of every mechanical de- 
partment in the newspaper office except the press- 
room was thus provided for as stated, steps were 
taken last year to make the same arrangements for 
arbitration with the International Printing Pressmen's 
and Assistants' Unions. An agreement was executed 
with this organization and our association on sub- 
stantially the same terms and for exactly the same 
period of time, from May i, 1902, to May 1, 1907. 
This was an aid to us last March in settling threatened 
trouble in some of the principal newspaper offices in 
New York City. 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 



290 



So that now all the mechanical labor employed in 
the newspaper offices is covered under these contracts. 

I have always found both the International presi- 
dents ever ready to co-operate with me in adjusting 
differences and settling trouble when it first arises. 
By reason of this policy of mutual conciliation, it is 
gratifying to be able to state that since the establish- 
ment of our industrial bureau there has not been a 
single strike in any of the offices of our members 
covering a period of two years and eight months. 

For the information of members of other branches 
of business, whether organized or unorganized, I will 
state that the American Newspaper Publishers' Asso- 
ciation is a voluntary organization: its action cannot 
obligate its members ; each publisher certainly so far 
as labor matters is concerned is absolutely inde- 
pendent and free to hold any attitude toward organ- 
ized labor which he deems for his interest. Thus, 
there are about ten per cent, of our publishers who 
have no relations with the unions. I state this di- 
versity of views and action because it is probably the 
case, to a greater or lesser degree, in all branches of 
manufacturing business. It seems the facts as re- 
lated show that any branch of manufacturing busi- 
ness can adopt a similar system to ours, for the bene- 
fit of members who feel compelled or who desire to 
establish harmonious relations with the unions. Its 
practicability has been demonstrated, and its adop- 
tion is cordially recommended. 

I am not here to expound any theories on the rela- 
tions of capital and labor. This is a rather practical 
world, and a prudent business man will always en- 



3 oo INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

deavor to profit by the experience of others. If such 
experience is profitable in its results, it will be wise 
to be guided thereby. If, on the contrary, no good 
results follow, it can safely be rejected. Tried by 
this test, we feel sure that the members of any 
branch of manufacturers, or other employers of or- 
ganized labor, will make no mistake if they follow 
in the footsteps of the American Newspaper Pub- 
lishers' Association. (Applause.) 

Mr. Gompers: We shall now hear a brief address 
from Mr. Samuel Mather, of the Pickand Mather 
Company, of Cleveland, 0. Mr. Mather and his 
company deal principally with longshoremen, the 
longshoremen 's organization. 

Mr. Samuel Mather: It is only about five minutes 
ago that your all-compelling secretary, Mr. Easley, 
came to me and requested that I speak on this sub- 
ject. I told him I was here entirely as an apprentice, 
coming here to listen and to learn, but apparently 
he believes in no restriction of apprenticeship, for 
he insisted that I say at least a few words on a 
subject that I know something about, namely, the 
working agreement that has been existing for the 
last three years between the Longshoremen's Union 
and the dock managers. That covers the business 
of handling iron ore and coal on the discharging docks 
of the different ports of Lake Erie, from Buffalo to 
Toledo; Buffalo, Erie, Conneaut, Cleveland, Ash- 
tabula, Fairport, Sandusky and various other ports. 
I must confess that I have not the detailed informa- 
tion on this subject which you should hear, for that 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 301 

branch of our business has been under the direct 
management of a junior member of our firm; but 
Mr. Keefe will go into that, undoubtedly, fully and in 
detail. 

I am very happy to be able to testify that since 
that continuous arrangement was inaugurated, about 
three years ago, our business has been conducted 
with very great advantage compared with what pre- 
vailed before. Prior to that time the longshoremen 
at the different docks had to be treated with separ- 
ately and for different causes. Now, at the beginning 
of each year, delegates from each local union — two 
delegates, I think, from each local union — meet at 
Cleveland. They have their own meeting, lasting be- 
tween three and four days, during which time they 
thresh out what they think they should have, what 
wages and hours and turns they should have for the 
ensuing year. Then they meet the dock managers 
and give their ultimatum or state their claims. The 
dock managers confer together and meet in confer- 
ence with them, during all which time the work con- 
tinues without interruption, and when the terms are 
finally agreed upon, as they have been in each year, 
without serious difficulty, we have found that they 
have been lived up to. And if any occasion of dis- 
pute arises, it has not caused the work to terminate, 
but it has been first locally settled, if possible, and 
if occasion necessitated has gone up to the chief 
council. That has worked satisfactorily, as I say, 
for three years, and is a great improvement over the 
arrangement, or rather the lack of arrangement, that 
existed before. I can testify a little as to the im- 



302 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 



provement, for before that, as I said at first, each 
dock claimed different wages, frequently different 
terms, and it had to be fought out individually. I 
recall very well at one time that our honored chair- 
man's brother, Mr. L. C. Hanna, and I, had to go 
down to Ashtabula to meet the workmen there and 
try to settle a dispute that had arisen there. We went 
down there ostensibly to meet the foremen of the 
different gangs, but when we reached there we found 
we were to have a sort of mass-meeting. A great 
hall had been hired and all the men were there. We 
had to make little addresses to them and state our 
side of the case, but I saw speedily that very little 
was to be gained by that; a great many of the men 
did not understand us; they did not speak in our 
language, did not understand English well, and I 
said we would have to present our claims in circulars, 
which would have to be printed so as to reach the 
individual men, which we accordingly did, and had 
our circulars printed in Hungarian and several lan- 
guages, and finally worked out some result. This 
with the shovelers and day laborers. 

Then the engineers had to be treated with, and that 
was agreed to be left to arbitration. Mr. Hanna was 
to present our side; a laboring man by the name of 
Pat Ryan was to present the side of the engineers and 
hoist ers, and they agreed upon a merchant there who 
was to be the referee. Then Mr. Ryan conducted 
Mr. Hanna down to the harbor again, telling him not 
to be afraid, that he would protect him. Mr. Hanna 
was even a more stalwart specimen of humanity than 
our good chairman, and Mr. Ryan was a scant five 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 



303 



feet. (Laughter.) Upon arriving, Mr. Hanna arose 
and made an elaborate argument in presenting his 
side, and after he had finished and when Mr. Ryan's 
turn had come, he arose and simply said: "Mr. 
Referee, the byes want an increase." Upon getting 
back to Ashtabula Mr. Hanna said to me: "I think 
we will have no difficulty in getting a verdict in our 
favor, for no argument was made on the other side." 
But he had hardly finished telling me this before he 
was called to the telephone and informed that "the 
'byes' had it." (Laughter.) 

I have nothing further to say except that I am 
very glad to testify that for three years this has 
worked very satisfactorily and a great deal better 
than before. I hope it may continue to work as 
satisfactorily hereafter. 

Mr. Gompers: We shall now hear an address by 
Mr. Daniel Keefe, president of the International 
Longshoremen's Association, representing the long- 
shoremen themselves. (Applause.) 

Mr. Keefe: Mr. Chairman, I am in favor of 
annual trade agreements, the meeting of employers 
and workers and adjusting their differences. How- 
ever, in order that the workers may be able to present 
a practical argument, it is necessary that all the men 
of that particular trade or calling be a part of the 
organization ; for if we expect to get conditions for the 
men, we must be able to represent all the men, and 
say to the employers that they are a part of the or- 
ganization. 

Our agreements date back for several years; I am 



3 04 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

not aware of any violation of them. Mr. Mathers has 
referred to an instance that occurred four years ago. 
which is true in a sense, but an amicable understand- 
ing was arrived at ; and since that time the employ- 
ers and workers have seen the advisability of meeting 
once each year for the purpose of renewing those 
agreements. We do not issue ultimatums, nor do 
we encourage the other fellow to do so. We take 
the position that if we are not able to present suffi- 
cient arguments showing why our demands should be 
complied with, we are not entitled to the changes 
asked for. (Applause.) We acknowledge the em- 
ployer has a perfect right to present such argument 
as he deems in keeping with his side of the question, 
showing that the conditions will not admit of his 
complying with our demands. We have, perhaps, 
established a different system than most business 
organizations, for ours is a business organization. 
First, we have every man in the organization, from 
the low wage-worker to the very highest and best 
paid man on the Lakes, whether he be an engineer, 
fireman, captain, or longshoreman, whose work is 
directly or indirectly connected with the dock or 
water front work. When the time arrives to make 
our annual agreements, there are notices sent out 
from the general office to the different locals inter- 
ested, to elect delegates to the conference. Those 
delegates are obliged to bring credentials from their 
local organizations, showing that they have agreed 
to whatever understanding may be arrived at the 
conference. The delegates have absolute power to 
make such agreements, as they deem best for the 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 



3°5 



men. After we get together, as Mr. Mather well said, 
there are several days devoted to general discussion. 
After that we have the convention, and select a com- 
mittee to meet with the employers. The satisfac- 
tory feature of it, however, is that there are some 
hundred and twenty delegates present, and you can- 
not constitute a committee of that number. The 
committee is composed of five, as a rule, but as the 
hundred and twenty have discussed the matter pro 
and con for some time, and understand the situation 
very well from data and different reports of the cost 
of production, transportation, and other costs, 
among themselves — before the committee has arrived 
at an understanding or an agreement with the em- 
ployers — the delegates have a general idea of what it 
is going to be. We do not return to our convention 
and report that we have done something subject to 
its approval. It is natural for the working-people 
to suppose that all that is required of their committee 
is to prepare their demand, present it to the employer, 
and have it signed and returned. But through these 
discussions we have been able to bring out the strong 
and the weak features of our side of our demands. 

We have no strikes, it has been well said, for this 
reason: Every man is a part of the agreement, 
whether he handles lumber, coal or iron ore; or is 
an engineer, hoister or fireman, or whether he is an 
elevator employee or tug captain. That, of course, 
prevents any misunderstanding. Our agreements pro- 
vide that any question arising not covered by the 
agreement must be adjusted by some method of 
arbitration which is provided for. There is no get- 



3 o6 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

ting away from that; if a question does arise which 
can.be only of a detailed nature, or of no great mo- 
ment, the committee on arbitration will adjust it, the 
work continuing, and both sides abide by the de- 
cision. 

We have had during the last year two important 
strikes that we were indirectly interested in. One 
was at Algiers, La., with the freight-handlers em- 
ployed by the Southern Pacific; the other was the 
Great Lakes tug strike. The first was settled through 
your chairman communicating with a member of the 
board, Mr. Krutschnitt, vice-president of the Southern 
Pacific, who took the matter up with myself, when I 
was on the Pacific Coast, where arrangements for 
conference were made, and it required only a very 
short time to adjust the difference satisfactorily to 
both sides. 

The tug strike was of considerable importance ; both 
sides contended they were right. The commerce of 
the Lakes was being interfered with. Your chair- 
man made an effort to get both parties together, but 
at first failed ; there was more or less correspondence 
passed between your chairman and our office. The 
commerce was being interfered with to such an ex- 
tent that something must be done. We had some 
thirty-seven thousand men who came directly in 
contact with the handling of the cargoes carried or 
transported from one place to another. However, 
we did not become involved in the strike. Our folks 
realized they had agreements, and they must be car- 
ried out. Every member of the organization is fur- 
nished with- a copy of the agreement in book form, 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 



307 



which he carries with him; the rules of the organi- 
zation are that he must have a copy with him at all 
times, so that if a question arises he can take out his 
book of agreement and see what is expected of him, 
and in this way no friction will occur. The tug strike 
was finally brought to a satisfactory settlement through 
your chairman. One of the conditions is that future 
agreements will be entered into. The tugmen are 
now a part of our organization, and we do not look 
for any future trouble; there has been no friction 
whatsoever since the agreement has been made. 
The same is true of all the Lake interests, and is true 
largely of the Pacific Coast. We have agreements 
with the important interests there along the same 
line. We have been able to reduce the number of 
hours of labor, and in some instances have advanced 
the wages. Yet, while the employers were very deter- 
mined against both of these conditions, the one thing 
that seemed to appease them was, that after they 
had entered into an agreement with us, they were 
satisfied that it would be carried out in both letter 
and spirit. 

The Civic Federation — and as a member of it I 
just want to say a word or two regarding it — the 
policy pursued by it has been the policy of our or- 
ganization for many years, and we are very much 
pleased to know that there is an organization like 
the Civic Federation, and that it has taken the broad 
view of having the employer and employee meet with 
each other, and encourage them to enter into annual 
agreements. (Applause.) 

I made a report to our last convention at Chicago 



3 o8 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

on the policy of the Civic Federation. I took the 
position that if the Civic Federation was a good thing, 
or its policy was good, all the workers ought to know 
it, and I submitted to them the subject for their con- 
sideration, and I am pleased to say that it was ap- 
proved of, and the executive office was instructed to 
have a representative at each meeting that the Civic 
Federation might hold. I want to take a moment or 
two of your time to read an extract from my report 
to our own organization, and I think that you will 
understand the policy of our association. 

I cannot do better than to quote from my report 
to the eleventh annual convention of our organiza- 
tion, held in Chicago, July, this year, relative to the 
aims and of the National Civic Federation, as 
well as its recommendations, especially on annual 
agreements. 

1 'Since our last convention, I have been honored by 
an appointment on the National Board of Conciliation 
and Arbitration, as a representative of organized 
labor. The board is composed of thirty-six members, 
namely, twelve employers of national reputation, 
twelve members of leading international labor unions, 
and twelve citizens who in the past have taken 
active interest in questions of public concern, espe- 
cially those questions of a social and economic char- 
acter. 

"The purpose and object of this organization I pro- 
pose to explain, and place before the rank and file 
of our members, in an intelligent and exhaustive 
treatment, as far as my ability will permit, to the end 
that each and every member may have a thorough 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 



309 



and comprehensive understanding of the subject, so 
as to enable one and all not only to give an intelligent 
explanation of the same, but also to be able to defend, 
if need be, our position from the assaults of the un- 
thinking or schemes of the extremists — who would 
annihilate and destroy everything that would tend 
towards a peaceful solution of the relations between 
capital and labor. 

"The purpose and object of the Board of Conciliation 
and Arbitration is to bring about the amicable ad- 
justment of any and all differences that arise between 
capital and labor. While the organization possesses 
no legal right to enforce any of its decisions or 
findings, yet the force of public opinion is all-powerful 
in enforcing justice and right, and can mitigate the 
evils of industrial contests, placing blame of oppres- 
sion on the shoulders where it properly belongs, and 
becoming a most potent social force in the adjust- 
ment of disputes between employer and employee. 

"My conviction has been for years that if the great 
mass of the public had an opportunity of thoroughly 
understanding the origin, cause and nature of most 
of the differences that arise between capital and 
labor, it would certainly redound to the benefit of the 
workers. The wage-worker is frequently repre- 
sented as an unruly, arbitrary and unreasonable 
being, whereas if the light of public opinion were 
thrown upon the controversy, it would demonstrate 
the reverse, and show the other fellow was unjust. 

Those of us who have been in the movement prior 
to the formation of the I. L. M. & T. A., say twenty 
years, can distinctly remember, that if the press or 



3 io INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

public at that time had any notice of a labor dispute 
or difficulty, there was but one side, and that of the 
employer, and all differences, no matter how honest 
the difference, all believed should be settled by the 
policeman's club. 

' ' Public sentiment is unquestionably stronger than 
any law, and has awakened the public to a higher 
sense of duty, that will to-day hearken to the voice 
of the toiler, who cries out not for charity, but insists 
on justice as the natural reward of industry and in- 
telligence. The great progress we have made up to 
date is demonstrated in the belief of the public, to 
wit: The public to-day recognize, first, there are two 
sides to every question; second, the creation and 
cultivation of social amelioration, and laws for the 
regulation of the hours of labor, child labor, etc.; 
third, the fact that the intelligence of the wage-worker 
appreciates the full meaning of co-operation of 
capital and labor, as essential to his own prosperity, 
and that his reward of a life of toil ensures him the 
desired comforts he needs in his old age and the edu- 
cation of his children. 

"This appointment upon a board of this character is 
certainly a great compliment to our organization." 

In my conclusion, relative to how annual agree- 
ments can be brought about, the reduction of the 
hours of labor, and eventually the introduction of the 
eight-hour day, I say, "no other reform in my judg- 
ment offers the same wide field for intelligent effort 
or promises the same practical and lasting benefits to 
society in general. 

" The trades union movement, like the mariner, 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 3 n 

never loses sight of its objective point, or its promised 
haven, and while the radical and conservative alike 
have places side by side in its ranks, and while at 
times some spasmodic outburst may seem to have 
clouded the course of the mariner, yet the good ship 
is steered through the fog and continues her course 
unerringly 

"We cherish the hope that through the intelligent 
efforts of organized labor, assisted and encouraged 
by an enlightened public opinion, the day is not far 
distant when the hopes of the toiler relative to the 
shorter work-day will be realized. 

" The cardinal or fundamental idea of the National 
Civic Federation is one that our organization can, 
with pride, boast of being one of the pioneers, namely, 
the signing of annual agreements or contracts. 
Long years ago, prior to the organization of the I. L. 
M. & T. A., our local unions favored this method, and, 
I might add, without appearing egotistical, that our 
great success and the respect that we command as an 
international organization is due primarily to the fact 
that we entered into agreements and religiously re- 
spected and recognized our honor in every respect. 

" The I. L. M. & T. A. has made gigantic strides 
since its organization ten years ago, and our tenth 
annual anniversary cannot be better celebrated than 
by looking backward over the past ten years, and in a 
calm and reflective mood studying the causes that have 
been instrumental in promoting our great progress, 
from a few feeble isolated local unions, into the mag- 
nificent international organization of over seventy 
thousand members, represented by you as delegates 



312 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE 



to this convention. And to-day we can point with 
pride to the fact that we never made an agreement 
and then broken it, notwithstanding that at times un- 
wise or unprofitable contracts have been made. 
We challenge any person to prove any case wherein 
we violated the same. We took our medicine and 
charged it up to profit and loss. (Laughter.) In the 
present condition of society it is absurd to expect 
wage- workers to work without organization, and a 
great reflection on our system of public education, 
to say that intelligence will not rule in the delibera- 
tions and meetings of organized labor, and the whole- 
sale indictment that there is an entire lack of honor 
among the rank and file, who will repudiate any 
agreement or contract not to their liking. These are 
but the utterances of those who declare they have 
nothing to arbitrate, and who have a divine right to 
the earnings of their fellow-man. Were employers 
to treat with labor organizations as a collection of 
rational human beings, who recognize their labor as 
their capital, and who desire to sell the same to the 
best possible advantage — in a word, if common sense 
were applied, with a proper spirit of compromise, it 
would effect a lasting and permanent solution of the 
relations of capital and labor." 

Mr. Gompers: We shall now hear from Mr. Fred- 
erick T. Towne, president of the National Founders' 
Association, the association of molding foundries, 
which has, and has had for the past six years an 
agreement with the Iron Molders' Union of North 
America, and a most satisfactory one to both sides, 



INDUSTRIAL COXFEREXCE. 313 

I am informed. I have the pleasure of introducing 
Mr. Towne. (Applause.) 

Mr. Frederick T. Towne: Mr. Chairman and 
Gentlemen of the Convention — I have been particu- 
larly interested in the remarks of the speakers this 
afternoon, because they have dealt with the very 
practical part of a question which we are here to dis- 
cuss. They have told us of the practical organizations 
which are working along practical lines in a manner to 
give practical results — at least, we should judge so 
from the statements they have made. And I know, 
as far as our association is concerned, that it has ac- 
complished practical results, which were not bene- 
ficial merely to the founders of the country, but to 
the molders as represented through the molders' 
union. I will present to you in a very few words the 
work of our organization, as it has been the secretary's 
request that I should do so. 

Your secretary has asked me to speak a few words 
concerning the relations existing between the National 
Founders' Association, which I have the honor to 
represent, and the Iron Molders' Union of North 
America. It occurs to me that it might not be amiss 
to preface these remarks with a brief explanation to 
those who are not familiar with the facts, of the scope 
and objects of the National Founders' Association, 
what it represents, and what it has accomplished. 

An association of employers operating foundries, 
either exclusively or as an adjunct to their main busi- 
ness; an association which has for its objects the 
establishment of a uniform basis for just and equi- 
table dealings between its members and their em- 



3U INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE 

ployees, whereby the interests of both will be properlv 
protected; an association which has a membership 
of 500, i. e., firms or corporations having a collective 
capital of over $300,000,000, and employing 27,000 
men in the foundry trades; an association founded 
six years ago, which has steadily increased in mem- 
bership, strength and usefulness until it has not only 
justified the hopes and expectations of its founders, 
but has demonstrated to the foundry industry of the 
country that the existence of such an organization 
is the best assurance which its members can obtain 
of industrial peace in their foundries; this, in brief, 
gentlemen, is what the National Founders' Associa- 
tion represents. 

The means employed to accomplish this end have 
been many and varied, but the underlying motive 
has always been the firm conviction that the success- 
ful solution of the so-called "labor question" can 
only be reached by dealing with it in the spirit of 
justice and broad-mindedness, and with due regard 
to the interests of both parties to the issue. 

The Association has had to contend with many 
difficulties during the formative period, the greatest 
being to awaken an interest in the work and an 
appreciation of the necessity that exists for combined 
action on the part of employers in order properly to 
protect their interests. But the net result of each 
year's work has been progress — progress along the 
lines of a better understanding between employer and 
employee. This, I understand, is the chief purpose 
sought to be accomplished by the industrial depart- 
ment of the National Civic Federation, and is, indeed, 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE 315 

the condition which all thinking employers and em- 
ployees alike, whether they be organized or not, are 
seeking to establish. 

The question, therefore, which concerns us all, and 
particularly the employers of the country, is how best 
can this condition of mutual confidence and under- 
standing with our employees be brought about? 
What practical plan can be adopted to attain this 
end? As already stated, the National Founders' 
Association believes that the first step is to meet 
organization with organization — not for the purpose 
of attack or oppression, but rather for co-operation. 
We believe that in consequence of the organization 
of labor, it is incumbent upon the employers similarly 
to organize, for no matter how high-principled an 
organization may be, nor how conservative its policy, 
there is a danger that it will, if unrestrained, impose 
unfair conditions upon the unorganized, and therefore 
weaker, body, whether it be employer or employee. 
On the other hand, with both sides organized, there 
exists a mutual respect on the part of each for the 
other which tends to minimize unjust or unreasonable 
action by either party. There is, furthermore, a 
sense of responsibility, conservatism and stability in 
an organization, which is oftentimes lacking in the 
individual, and a better realization of the fact that 
the relation between capital and labor is reciprocal, 
and that no adjustment of a dispute arising between 
them can be just or permanent unless settled with 
due consideration to the interests of both parties. 

It was a realization of this fact — the importance 
of organization — which led the foundry men to form 



3I 6 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

the National Founders' Association, and the same 
motives which prompted them to organize have like- 
wise appealed to employers in other lines of in- 
dustry, until to-day it is safe to predict that the time 
is not far distant when the employers of this country 
will be as effectively and usefully organized in all 
trades as the men whom they employ. We are 
pioneers in this new field of organization. Our 
methods are doubtless still crude and the results slow 
of accomplishment, but we have conviction in the 
wisdom of the general policy, and faith that upon 
these broad lines the labor question may be solved. 

The methods pursued by the National Founders' 
Association in conducting its affairs are interesting 
as illustrating what has proved to be a thoroughly 
practical scheme of employers' organization. But 
the time at my disposal is too short to permit of 
detailed description. I will say, however, that the 
control of the affairs of the association is vested in 
the hands of the executive officers and a Council 
of eighteen members representing different districts 
into which the country is arbitrarily divided. The 
Council meets quarterly, or oftener if necessary, 
and in the interim its authority is vested in the 
executive officers and a commissioner, who with a 
trained corps of assistants conducts the detail work 
of the association. In the event of a labor disturb- 
ance occurring in the foundry of one of our members 
which he is unable to adjust to the satisfaction of 
himself and his employees, he refers the case to the 
commissioner as representing the association, with 
the request that he investigate the issue and en- 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 



317 



deavor to reach a settlement which will be mutually 
acceptable. If this effort should fail the case is re- 
ferred to a committee of arbitration composed of 
three representatives of each side of the controversy, 
and not unless this committee fails to agree does any 
cessation of work occur at the instance of either 
party, nor is recourse taken to the more drastic 
measures of strike or lockout. 

This brings me to the subject of this paper, viz: 
the relations existing between the Iron Molders' 
Union of North America and the National Founders' 
Association, for without an explanation of these 
relations the plan of procedure in the event of a 
labor disturbance occurring in a member's shop is 
not readily understood. 

A few years after the National Founders' Asso- 
ciation was organized it became evident to both 
members of the association and to the Iron Molders' 
Union of North America that unless some under- 
standing was reached between the two organizations 
they would be in a continual state of warfare ; there- 
fore in the year 1899, a joint conference was held 
and as a result of much discussion a resolution was 
passed recommending the adoption of a joint agree- 
ment between the two associations. This recom- 
mendation was afterwards approved by the mem- 
bers of both organizations and the agreement duly 
ratified. To say that this was the most important 
action ever taken individually or collectively by 
either of these two associations is, I believe, not 
overstating the fact. Indeed, it is not too much to 
say that it was of great significance to every in- 



3 i8 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

dustry of the country as an indication of the pro- 
gressive tendency of the times and as an example 
of what could be accomplished by the co-operation 
of organizations representing employers and em- 
ployees. This understanding, which has since been 
known as the "New York Agreement," has been the 
means of averting many serious strikes and untold 
loss to both parties. The adoption of the agreement 
was such a notable step in advance, and its applica- 
tion has proved to be of so great mutual benefit, 
that I believe it would be of interest to quote the 
resolutions in full. 

"Whereas, the past experience of the members 
of the National Founders' Association and the Iron 
Molders' Union of North America, justifies them in 
the opinion that any arrangement entered into that 
will conduce to the greater harmony of their rela- 
tions as employers and employees, will be to their 
mutual advantage; therefore, be it 

" Resolved, That this Committee of Conference 
endorse the principle of arbitration in the settle- 
ment of trades disputes, and recommend the same 
for adoption by the members of the National Foun- 
ders' Association and the Iron Molders' Union of 
North America, on the following lines: 

"That in the event of a dispute arising between 
members of the respective organizations, a reasonable 
effort shall be made by the parties directly at inter- 
est to effect a satisfactory adjustment of the diffi- 
culty; failing to do which, either party shall have 
the right to ask its reference to a committee of ar- 
bitration, which shall consist of the presidents of the 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 319 

National Founders' Association and the Iron Muld- 
ers' Union of North America, or their representatives, 
and two other representatives from each association 
appointed by the respective presidents. 

"The finding of this committee of arbitration, by 
a majority vote, shall be considered final in so far 
as the future action of the respective organizations 
is concerned. 

"Pending adjudication by the committee on ar- 
bitration there shall be no cessation of work at the 
instance of either party to the dispute. 

"The committee of arbitration shall meet within 
two weeks after the reference of the dispute to them." 

It will thus be seen that in the event of trouble 
occurring between members of the two associations, 
open hostilities may be prevented; indeed, even 
cessation of work at the instance of either party may 
be avoided until the case has been thoroughly inves- 
tigated and an attempt made to settle the difference 
amicably. Surely no words of mine are necessary 
to impress upon this body the importance and far 
reaching consequences of such an agreement. We 
all know that the object most to be desired in the 
settlement of any controversy is that time should 
be allowed to enable the parties in dispute to inves- 
tigate and understand thoroughly both sides of the 
question. Truce once established, a settlement is 
much more likely to be reached when the principals 
have had an opportunity to consider calmly and 
dispassionately the claims of the other side. And 
finally, if it becomes necessary to refer the dispute 
to a committee of arbitration, there is a strong 



3 20 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

probability that by means of outside influences an 
agreement can be reached which will be acceptable 
to the parties at issue. Experience has proved 
this to be the case between the National Founders' 
Association and the Iron Molders' Union, and it is 
gratifying to state that although there have been 
instances where the terms of the New York Agree- 
ment were not adhered to, they are the rare excep- 
tions. 

In addition to the practical results accomplished 
by the New York Agreement, it has also made pos- 
sible a better understanding between the governing 
boards of the two associations on many issues which 
are necessarily constantly arising between the two 
bodies. Growing out of the mutual confidence 
inspired by the original joint conference, there 
have been other conferences held to consider and 
if possible formulate other agreements to govern 
the two organizations on matters relating to the 
mutual welfare of their members. 

Among the more important subjects discussed 
may be mentioned a national wage agreement; 
a shorter work-day; the establishment of more 
equitable conditions relating to apprentices; re- 
striction of output; limitation of a man's earning 
capacity ; the abolition of a flat minimum wage rate ; 
the establishment of a differential wage rate for 
molders, and many other issues of a similar nature. 

As might be expected, these conferences have 
oftentimes led to no practical results, but they 
have been educational to both parties and as such 
have been of great value. Progress has been slow 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 



321 



but none the less sure, and the disposition evidenced 
by both sides to give full consideration to the claims 
of the other, and the openly expressed desire to 
reach a settlement on the many points of difference 
which will be mutually acceptable, is the best as- 
surance that the day is not far distant when many 
of these issues will be adjusted to the satisfaction 
of both organizations. 

This very brief statement of the relations existing 
between two organizations representing employers 
in the foundry industry, and of the results which 
have been accomplished in a short space of time, 
should make evident even to the skeptic the benefit 
to be derived by co-operation between two such 
representative bodies in any industry. It is a fact, 
however, that although the truth of this statement 
is to-day generally admitted by the employer, many 
fail to act or profit by it. The apathy and indiffer- 
ence of the employer to this subject is astounding 
and does not reflect credit upon his intelligence or 
breadth of view. He apparently believes that he 
can better afford to give his time and attention to 
the conduct of his immediate business rather than 
to lend his services or even his sympathy to a move- 
ment which has merely a general bearing upon his 
affairs. He is content to let others bear the brunt 
of the battle and carry forward the work through 
the early and difficult formative period until success 
is assured, and then step in to enjoy the fruits of 
their labor. 

Fortunately this attitude of mind is becoming 
less and less apparent in this country to-day. There 



322 INDUSTRIAL COXFEREXCE. 

seems to be a rapidly increasing disposition on the 
part of employers to study the problem and to assist 
in its solution by joining with their fellow employ- 
ers in devising means to that end. 

It seems to me that in this field the National 
Civic Federation can be particularly helpful to the 
industries of the country and can accomplish much 
good. With its splendidly representative exe- 
cutive committee it can create public opinion and 
exert a strong and widespread influence. It is an 
independent and disinterested body, and its recom- 
mendations carry great weight. I hope, therefore, 
you may see fit to use this power to urge upon em- 
ployers in all lines of industry the merit of organ- 
ization, to impress upon them the fact that by or- 
ganization the employer may derive many of the 
benefits which have heretofore been obtained by 
labor alone. By such means and under such con- 
ditions much of the present uncertainty surround- 
ing conditions and employment of labor may be 
removed, and co-operation and mutual confidence 
established. (Applause.) 

The following is an extract from a letter received 
by the Secretary of the Civic Federation from Mr. 
Jas. F. Valentine, vice-president of the International 
Molders' Union: 

I take pleasure in expressing myself as being per- 
sonally in hearty accord with all attempts to avoid 
labor conflicts, and believe that the policy of con- 
ciliation is much the best adapted for this purpose 
and brings about more satisfactory results. As 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 323 

Mr. Fox has told you, in the past we have had an 
experience of eleven years with the Stove Founders' 
National Defense Association, under an agreement 
which provides for the decision of a committee of 
conciliation, erroneously called a committee of 
arbitration by some, before any rupture can take 
place. So successfully have the two associations 
conducted, their business since this agreement be- 
came operative, that it affords me pleasure to say 
not one strike has occurred to disturb the contin- 
uous harmony. 

Since 1899 we have had dealings with the National 
Founders' Association under a similar form of agree- 
ment and have, on the whole, been fairly successful 
in preventing many serious industrial disputes. 
We have not yet reached the ideal stage in which it 
can be said, with absolute assurance, that there 
is no possibility of conflict, for, unfortunately, 
there are many points of difference yet unsolved 
between employer and employee, not only in the 
foundry industry but in practically all others. These 
points involve cardinal principles, and I feel that I 
am not going beyond the truth when I say that 
both sides require further education before we can 
hope to reach a complete understanding. There 
are certain inalienable rights both of employer and 
employee, that must be clearly defined and under- 
stood before industrial peace can be assured. Not- 
withstanding that fact, however, which is patent 
to all who give the subject any consideration, I 
remain firmly of the belief that any joint agreement 
which carries with it the obligation to bring contend- 



324 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

ing parties together, is in the best interest of all 
concerned, in the best interest of the industry with 
which they are identified, and in the best interest 
of the community at large. Sentimental objections 
to recognition of a labor organization as such, are, 
in my estimation, serious bars to the success of this 
policy, and it appears to me no employer nor asso- 
ciation of employers compromise their position, 
weaken their case, or injure their rights in any de- 
gree, by recognizing the rights of their employees 
to organize, and to do business through their organ- 
ization and its authorized representatives. If there 
were no labor organization, there could be no con- 
ciliation nor arbitration, and I am in hopes that 
such meetings as those that are now being held 
under the auspices of the National Civic Federation 
will assist materially in clearing up this point at least. 
Mr. Hanna here entered and assumed the chair 
during the remainder of the session. 

Chairman Hanna: I will next call on Mr. M. M. 
Garland, of Pittsburg, former President of the Amal- 
gamated Iron and Steel Association. (Applause.) 

Mr. Garland: Mr. Chairman and Friends — I 
came here as a listener, and if I had had anything 
particular to say after the last three speakers, it 
seems to me I would be left without anything to 
add. They have covered the ground that I believe 
in. For thirty-six years the iron and steel workers 
of this country have been meeting with the employ- 
ers, year in and year out, each and every year, and 
making settlements of wages and conditions for the 






INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 325 

following year. I have heard a great deal of talk 
of the round table at this meeting. My experience, 
friends, has been the long table. (Laughter.) We 
meet yearly in a long room, with a long table, al- 
most the length of the room. On one side are the 
representatives of not thousands, but millions of 
dollars when collectively figured, and on the other 
side representatives of thousands upon thousands 
of workmen. We need a long table because the 
manufacturers find it necessary at times to come 
forward and pound, and then we go forward and 
pound, and sometimes both sides are pounding the 
table at once. And in other instances we even get 
on the table, and I have known extreme cases when 
we got over the table (laughter) in order to impress 
each side with our views of the debate. (Laughter.) 
We bring in our box of stogies and put it on the 
table, and the manufacturers their box of cigars 
and put it on the same table. We trade smokes, 
and when the smoke of the conference has cleared 
away an agreement signed by both sides lies on the 
table. My friends, you can talk of these plans of 
settlement all you please, but it seems to me there 
is only one plan, that of the employers and employees 
getting together as a family (applause) taking up 
the situation and going through it thoroughly and 
settling it. Remember when they get there to- 
gether there are a lot of things come in that cannot 
be introduced into an outside committee for arbi- 
tration, because on the one side are the employers 
who probably were working men in the mills at 
one time. 



326 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

On the same side are the bosses, the managers, who 
with a very few exceptions were members of our 
organization, who were taken up from the meetings 
of the conference; who were taken from the ranks 
of the workmen and made managers, because of 
their ability to thresh out and fight out justice 
between themselves and their employers. I hear 
a great deal of the idea that we are not — and every- 
body agrees that we are not — opposed to organized 
labor; that we believe that workmen should be 
treated fairly; but how are you going to get a con- 
crete plan of treating them fairly? If an agreement 
is made without consulting the workmen, is it an 
agreement — oh, no. But by the encouragement of 
organization of labor you produce a concrete form, 
a committee as it were, who have charge of these 
affairs. Let me tell you that in our organization 
when we meet as described by Mr. Keefe, of the 
Longshoremen, we thresh over what we desire for 
the coming year, and then we put it into the hands 
of a few men and say, "Here you have got power 
to go and meet the employers and make a settlement, 
absolute power." It doesn't matter what they do, 
we stand for it. We have had our say in our con- 
ventions; we have advised what we think is 
right, but we put on them the power and also the 
consequence of non-settlement. 

This Civic Federation is a body composed for the 
purpose, as I understand it, of urging and inciting 
settlement of differences between employer and 
employed. I have been somewhat surprised at the 
statements made by some of the committee, and 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 327 

also by the very well worded article written by the 
secretary of the committee, that they were not 
intruding ; that they did not have the idea of forcing 
themselves into making arrangements unless they 
were invited, but that they stood in the position 
of being willing to. I want to say to you that this 
committee is all-important to my mind. It is 
practically a conciliatory board, but this is the idea 
I want to bring out: It is simply whether they are 
invited into a difference that arises between em- 
ployer and employed or not, when one of great 
moment occurs this board is established for the 
purpose of getting in there and assisting settlement 
if possible, if desirable. But refusal on the part 
of either of the sides of the dispute to permit this 
committee to go in and advise sets the authority 
of public opinion as against the side who would not 
permit it. Practically then it is an arbitration 
committee. I believe their greatest office is in com- 
pelling settlements along the line that I have de- 
scribed. The idea of an agreement between em- 
ployer and employed, without interference on the 
outside, is strongly urged in every action that we 
have seen. For instance, in the recent coal strike 
a commission, so-called — "a rose by any other name 
is just as sweet" — which commission was appointed 
for the purpose of investigating. It might have 
been just as well called an arbitration board, because 
that is its office. But after it had been voluntarily 
agreed to by those who were most bitterly opposed 
to organized labor, and this commission no sooner 
meets, talks and brings up this problem and starts 



328 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

in on its work, than voluntarily they who advised 
for the appointment of a commission now advise 
for a settlement between themselves. They ask 
now, as I understand it, if I am well informed , that 
it be taken out of the hands of this commission 
and that they settle the matter themselves between 
them and the miners. That is the strongest kind 
of argument for the old homemade stamp, the old 
style of getting back neighbor to neighbor, man to 
man, employer to employee. It used to be in the 
mills — I remember it well, having been brought up 
in the rolling mills from the time I was a little pull- 
up at the door of a heating furnace, until very re- 
cently, having been associated with organized labor, 
and now in a small way a manufacturer and treating 
with organized labor in the mills — it used to be when 
the president of the company or the secretary of 
the company, because we then knew them well 
personally, would walk through the mill every few 
days, saying, "how are you, boys?" and shaking 
hands, "How is the furnace working to-day, how is 
the family, have a chew or a smoke?" Something 
of that kind. We could meet in conference in 
those days on a basis of friendly understanding. 
How is it now? The stock of the great rolling mills 
is held by the great public. The owners never see 
the men who work the mills. The only touch be- 
tween the men and the firm now is through the boss 
or manager, and the system now under the com- 
binations is to promote the boss who brings the 
best returns. Whether he does it by lowering the 
wages, by working longer hours, or what not, mat- 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 329 

ters little, so long as he brings the returns. Hence 
I say the competition and the condition of the man 
who works are getting to that point where greater 
organization of labor is necessary. At one time 
there was a feeling in common, but now there cannot 
be anything warmer than that permitted by the pro- 
motion system to the boss who has charge of the 
men, and who has little or no money invested in the 
concern. 

The effort, then, of the committee, is to promote 
this plan of settlement. To my mind a greater or- 
ganization of labor would be an excellent plan for 
them to advise, for the purpose of bringing about the 
conferences necessary between employers and em- 
ployed. 

I have heard the question raised as to 
whether a company may prosper when they 
deal with organized labor. For thirty-six years I 
want to say to you that a large number of the 
iron and steel manufacturers have been dealing 
with their employees year after year and none of 
them that I know of have gone to the poorhouse. 
They have emerged from small manufacturers to 
great manufacturers. They have gone from the 
thousands to the millions. The piece-work system is 
in operation throughout the mills, and I stand here 
to say that I think it is the only system. It is an 
agreement entered into by conferences — a tonnage 
system we call it. You may call it piece-work; it 
is practically the same thing. So much output for 
so much money, for the reason that it incites the man 
on to his greatest effort. Leave him without any in- 



33© INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

centive of that kind and his inclination will be to 
get along just as easily as he can and get his wages 
just as easily as he can. The tonnage system was in- 
troduced at the inception of our agreement. To-day, 
per ton, where the conditions are the same, the wages 
are twenty per cent, higher than when the agreement 
was entered into thirty-six years ago, proving that 
the idea of the piece-work system meaning a reduc- 
tion of wages is not correct — at least, it is not so 
with our rolling mills. 

We have no apprentice system. The requirements 
in rolling mills are a broad back and strong arms. 
Under the system of piece-work a man can start in 
as an apprentice, and if he does not produce as much 
as a man who is a well-skilled worker he only gets 
paid so much less, but it doesn't lessen the producing 
power of the man who can turn out more work. If 
old age comes on his capability of producing is less, 
but he gets as much per piece, per ton, as the man 
who is able and strong enough to make the product, 
and as a consequence, he doesn't interfere with the 
able-bodied man in securing the wage. Therefore, I 
say to you that I believe in the incitement of paying 
piece-work or tonnage. 

I don't believe in the premium plan. The premium, 
I think, has been pretty well proven here, and the 
argument on it proved conclusively, that it was not 
the thing. This premium plan puts me in mind of 
John Morgan and Tom Marlow, an Irishman and a 
Welshman, who were working in the mills where I 
was. They had a great deal of trouble over a shovel 
which thev used and which had been stolen. One 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 



33i 



day they were changing turns when Morgan said to 
Mario w, "Tom, I was just thinking about the trouble 
we had with that shovel and was thinking that if we 
were to put a mark on the handle of the next one we 
get, we would know if any one stole it." Tom 
scratched his head a little and said: "John, I don't 
think that would amount to much. The man who 
would be mane enough to steal the shovel would steal 
the mark, too." (Laughter.) The premium plan 
strikes me as on that same idea. 

I don't believe in pensions in old age. I don't be- 
lieve in inciting a workman to serve in a place by 
promising him after he has been there a number of 
years that he will get a pension. Pensions are, I 
rather think, necessary so far as war veterans are 
concerned ; but when you introduce it into every-day 
life you take away the incentive of the man to put 
forward his greatest effort. You take away his as- 
piration to earn enough money that he may get up 
in the world. You take away the incentive to lay by 
enough against dependence in old age. It is pater- 
nalism in another form. I am opposed to anything 
in the way of paternalism. I believe in inciting men 
to greater effort and better work, and shortening their 
hours. 

Now, I have heard much of the eight-hour question 
and how it would work, and what a great hardship 
it would create on the manufacturer. I had hoped 
that some one would touch this phase of the question. 
Up to 1884 in the rolling mills there were ten or 
twelve hours at all times. In 1884 we got up a dis- 
cussion of experimenting on sheet mills; as to whe- 



332 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 



ther we could work three turns of eight hours, and it 
was discussed and gone through with the manufac- 
turers; some of the workmen were at first alarmed 
and were opposed to the change. But we finally 
agreed that we would make the experiment in one 
particular mill for a year. We were then working 
ten hours on sheet mills, two shifts. We were turn- 
ing out eight heats in ten hours. It was agreed to 
lessen the number of heats to seven, in order to put 
on three shifts, working eight hours. Within a few 
years we were working nine heats instead of seven 
on the three-turn system, and from the one sheet mill 
the system was introduced practically in every sheet 
mill in the United States 

The tin plate industry came into this country in 
1892, and every mill in the United States was put on 
an eight-hour or three-turn basis. Not alone this, 
but the example set proved that it was possible in 
mills where we never expected to see it operated, 
and we have introduced it now into the puddling 
departments, into the finishing departments, in fact, 
into every department of the rolling mill has gone the 
three-turn system of eight hours to a greater or lesser 
degree. 

The effort along this line has increased the output. 
It did not disturb things, and I want to say to you 
to-day that if we, as an organization, went to the em- 
ployers and asked for a return to the twelve-hour 
system, they would combat it more furiously than 
they would a large advance in wages. They believe 
in it. They have seen the benefit to themselves of 
men who are working shorter hours; that they can 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 



333 



do better work. Their whole being is more alive for 
eight hours; they can watch a machine better; there 
is less breakage of rolls; there is less breakage of 
machinery; their whole person is alert for that time. 
Drag them on for twelve hours and you don't get 
that return; you don't get that full effort of the man. 
I have only known in my experience one case in 
which a return from eight hours to twelve was made, 
and that was said to be because the competitors in 
the same line of work would not come to it. 

I have heard a good deal of discussion as to the 
great hardship it would be to put on eight hours in 
the mills and factories throughout the United States. 
No one here has stated where they have learned that 
any firm or company working eight hours went back 
to long hours. To my mind there is none. Hence 
the best possible proof that the system of shorter 
hours is a benefit. Those things are worked out to see 
how they pay, as was stated here the other day. 
They are worked out simply on that line. Hence, if a 
mill is operating on eight hours and they continue on 
eight hours and do not advise a return to the old 
system, does not that prove that the system is good? 

In addition to that it has been stated here that it 
is absolutely impossible to start the work of eight 
hours in factories. Do you know that in this age of 
electric lights, generally speaking, factories are 
running more than ten or twelve hours. I think 
there are very few exceptions where factories that 
are working single turn are not giving the men over T 
time in the evening, working two, three or four hours 
in the evening and paying them time and a half. 



334 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE 

Now, if they can be worked ten, twelve and four- 
teen hours, why not work them two shifts of eight 
hours each? The cost would be lessened by straight 
time in wages. Looking at the subject from this to 
me practical side, I cannot see that this committee 
could advise more wisely than by urging the settle- 
ment of disputes between employers and employees 
themselves. If either one makes a mistake in de- 
mands, this committee stands as a reproving com- 
mittee. Its office is to discover whether either of the 
parties in a dispute is unwilling to expose to the 
light of day their side to the difficulty. If they are, 
then they have not got a good case. They have 
been acting foolishly, and as a consequence this com- 
mittee can say to them : " Quit foolishness ; meet with 
the other side and deal on a business basis." 

After all, there is nothing to the subject except 
this, that the employee works for wages, and the 
more he can get the better for him. He wants to 
work shorter hours because of bettering his condition, 
to have time to associate with his family, and to edu- 
cate himself and to meet with others and lift himself 
socially, instead of dragging on twelve hours, going 
home and sleeping and eating, and coming back 
again to work day after day. Now, when it is proven 
that the output is greater, when our capacity to com- 
pete with countries that have been working longer 
hours has been proven, we say to you that we think 
it is well to advise the adoption of this eight-hour 
bill that is now before Congress at Washington and 
that has been disputed here to-day. It has been 
said here that it would impose a hardship upon some 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 335 

manufacturers who might bid for government work 
to require them to work on the eight-hour system. 
I want to say to you that where labor organizations, 
where agreements have been entered into between 
manufacturer and man on the eight-hour basis, 
and there is no provision that the contract 
shall be let on the eight-hour basis, does it not 
impose a hardship on the man or company who 
is working the eight hours? Is it fair to them? 
The government, it seems to me, should be willing 
to aid and abet any improvement in the condition 
of the people and the greater number of the people. 
(Applause.) 

Chairman Hanna: I will now introduce to you 
Mr. A. Beverly Smith, secretary of the Lithographers' 
Association of the United States 

Mr. A. Beverly Smith: My time is limited, and as 
I come from an industry not so large nor so broad as 
those which have preceded us, probably this is as 
it should be. At the same time, I feel that our asso- 
ciation has evolved some thoughts along the lines 
you have been discussing in this last session of your 
convention, and that these ideas may be of service. 

Our association represents at the present time fully 
seventy-five per cent, of the lithographic output of the 
entire United States, and although lithography is a 
small industry compared to some others, it contains 
within itself all the elements that enter into, and all 
the factors that are a portion of the problems pre- 
sented to the greatest corporation or the largest in- 
dustry in the country. 



336 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

It is useless for me to review the present conditions 
of trade as related to labor. We all know what they 
are, and those who, up to this time, have not realized 
them, have had the importance of these conditions 
fully demonstrated at this convention by abler 
tongues than mine. These conditions are, some of 
them, bad, many onerous in the extreme, and alto- 
gether form a most serious handicap upon the prog- 
ress of our industries. I hold, however, that the 
apathy of employers, as a class, is most largely re- 
sponsible for the present situation and for the ills of 
the present condition. Employers failed to see the 
potentialities for good or ill in the organization by 
their men, and neglected the golden opportunity 
afforded in the beginning of such organization to 
make themselves part of it, as it were, and by wise 
counsel and friendly co-operation to direct the move- 
ment to the betterment of trade conditions. Had 
they done this, the history of trade unionism in this 
country would have been very different from what it 
is. 

As matters stand to-day, separate organization on 
the part of employers is an absolute necessity. Not 
merely organization along broad lines, such as has 
been attempted in the past, and which has failed in 
almost every instance to produce any good or per- 
manent result — but close, truly co-operative organi- 
zation, such as the trade unions themselves possess. 
Such an organization, duly recognizing the labor or- 
ganizations, and working under a policy of perfect 
fairness and scrupulous good faith, presents the only 
means at hand to-day by which the employer can 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 337 

hope to cope successfully with the mighty forces 
which have been called into being by the men. 
Isolated action by even the largest employer will no 
longer suffice ; even groups of employers by cities are 
not strong enough. It is only by the combination of 
a whole trade into a compact organization that it is 
possible to accomplish any good and permanent re- 
sult. 

Under the old regime we had, first, the isolated 
employer dealing directly with his men, and through 
the demands of competition, or for less noble reasons, 
driving bargains with them which were not always 
fair ; this bred antagonisms on the part of the men ; 
next came associations of employers loosely put to- 
gether, with no discipline, and not always with the 
spirit of fair dealing — ready to disappear, as most of 
them have, at the first breath of storm, or disrupted 
by the sharp practice of those who sought to use the 
organization for their own selfish purpose. This form 
of association also begot antagonisms between em- 
ployer and employee, and increased the feeling of 
bitterness between the classes. Open strife, re- 
prisals and arbitrary measures by the party tempor- 
arily in power were the result, and thus it stands to- 
day. 

There seems to us to be one solution for all this, 
and that is to form of the employers an association 
having a business head and place of business, work- 
ing under strict discipline, through which each mem- 
ber shall be obliged to live up to and abide by the laws 
mutually agreed upon, and dominated by the policy 
of fair dealing, to which I have before alluded. Such 



338 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

an organization can well afford to accept the organi- 
zations of the men as necessary to them and a very 
proper thing — as a good thing for the employer as 
well as themselves, and to consider them as partners 
in an operation to which there are always three fac- 
tors, namely, the employer, the workman, and the 
public that purchases the product. That idea is 
carried out, as you know, in the Civic Federation. 
In the doing of this, we believe in setting up between 
organized labor and organized employers a condi- 
tion that we have termed "mutual government," to- 
gether with "preventive arbitration.'* It may be well 
to explain what we mean by these terms. 

"Mutual government," from our point of view, 
means the establishment of a joint body which shall 
have full and absolute control over matters of mutual 
concern between employer and employee ; getting to- 
gether before there is any trouble, before there is any 
dispute to settle, and determining the fundamental 
conditions upon which the trade shall be conducted 
in its relation to labor, and governing the mutual 
relations of both parties absolutely. "Preventive 
arbitration" means that should any question at all 
fundamental arise, upon which the joint governing 
body is unable to reach a conclusion, it is not to be 
allowed to become an issue between the parties, but, 
then and there, before antagonistic feelings have been 
engendered, before friction has come, it is to be sub- 
mitted to the arbitration of disinterested individuals 
and their decision accepted as final. 

We do not profess to have a panacea for all the 
ills that trade is heir to — there are too many such 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE 339 

offered us — but we do believe we have gotten down 
to fundamental principles and are progressing along 
the road to better conditions for both capital and 
labor. Trade agreements are good, although they 
leave unsolved that most important question of the 
mutual relation of employer and employee to the 
product of both; so are those agreements by which 
capital and labor get together in localities and estab- 
lish mutual relations under which yearly scales are 
determined; all these are steps in the right direction, 
but they are only steps after all. It is only by the 
mutual determination of all the elements of the prob- 
lem that industrial peace, or better, industrial har- 
mony, can be assured. 

Under conditions such as I have briefly outlined, 
the restriction of output and limitation of appren- 
tices cease to be the vitally important questions 
which they are at present. We all know that both 
these evils exist, and we all know that they exist as 
the direct action of trade unions. It seems to me 
that evasion in this matter is both foolish and futile. 
Trade unions do restrict output, and by their consti- 
tutions and laws restrict the ratio of apprentices in 
any given trade, but the leaders of organized labor 
have done this to perfect and strengthen their or- 
ganizations, under conditions in which it seemed to 
them the proper — and what is more to the point — 
the easiest way to accomplish this, and because, 
through the apathy of the employers, they were left 
to do pretty much as they pleased. Short-sighted 
they were, of course, and they have almost emascu- 
lated some industries by their restrictions, but they 



340 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

have had no one to teach them better, to counsel 
them against it, or to otherwise restrain them. 

No union can afford, or will be willing, to go upon 
record as sanctioning anything which will tend to 
retard or destroy its trade; the union is equally in- 
terested with the employer in preserving and foster- 
ing the business that affords both a livelihood; it is 
because they do not believe the statement of em- 
ployers that restriction of output or of apprentices 
will injure business, that the union enforces such re- 
strictions. Perhaps the very best proof of this is to 
be found in the fact that in our own trade, where 
mutual conditions such as I have described have 
been established, and the employers thereby enabled 
to demonstrate the harm likely to occur, the unions 
have manifested a willingness, and even a desire, to 
have the ratio of apprentices fixed by concerted action 
of the employers and themselves, at a figure sufficient- 
ly high to insure meeting the legitimate requirements 
of the trade, as demonstrable by the facts only possible 
to be obtained through united action. 

Another advantage to be obtained by the working 
together of the unions with the associations of em- 
ployers is the immense strengthening of each by the 
moral and active support of the other. No organi- 
zation has yet been formed that has not had its 
enemies without, eager to take advantage of any 
opportunity, and its foes within, ready to desert the 
cause at any time immediate self-interest should 
prompt. Both organizations, standing together, and 
using their united power against those who refuse to 
abide by the conclusions arrived at by fair-minded, 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 341 

mutual effort, would be irresistible. We have heard 
a great deal here of the only weapon labor has with 
which to protect itself, and we are told this weapon 
is the power to strike ; that without it labor, whether 
organized or not, is powerless. This is not true. 
There exists a weapon the unions have not attempted 
to use, which yet lies within their hands; this weapon 
also lies unused within the armory of the employer, 
although potent against trade unionism , and against 
any attempt it might make outside its moral or 
legal rights; this weapon is the self-interest of the 
opposite party. If unionism will go hand-in-hand 
with the employer, and the employer go hand-in-hand 
with it, acknowledging its partnership — a limited 
partnership, it is true, but a partnership nevertheless 
— it will then become the direct self-interest of 
each to strengthen and increase the other, to keep 
faith with and defend the other, and in all ways to 
oppose those who are antagonistic to either. This 
weapon is the most potent and powerful that can be 
wielded, and one to the use of which there can lie 
no objection, either moral or legal. 

Arbitration is at once the most lauded and the most 
condemned of all methods of arranging disputes be- 
tween both nations and individuals; lauded, because 
it is founded upon the eternal principles of justice 
and equity; condemned, because, in its application, 
the principles underlying it are too often sacrificed 
to policy, and what should be the decision of a prin- 
ciple too often becomes merely a compromise be- 
tween right and wrong. The reason for this is not 
far to seek, at least so far as the industrial field is 



342 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 



concerned. It is because arbitration is usually only 
resorted to after active warfare has begun. Then, when 
all the bitterness engendered by strife is arrayed on 
either side, and blows struck in anger, and reprisals 
are brought forward, they too often smother and re- 
place the original issue. Under such circumstances, 
policy, and sometimes even necessity, requires of the 
arbitrators a reconciliation of the conflicting elements, 
rather than an equitable decision of the question, 
and this, however acceptable it may be to the parties 
at the moment, when viewed in the clearer light of 
after-thought, becomes a reproach, and the method 
by which it was obtained is unsparingly condemned. 

The remedy is to be found in the application of ar- 
bitration before, not after, an issue has been set up. 
This method works good in two ways. First, under 
the conditions named, arbitration is applied with 
freedom from bias, and the decision rendered is di- 
rectly upon the question presented, unclouded by 
suspicion of mere policy; second, with arbitration 
present and ready to determine in equity any ques- 
tion, the fair-mindedness (and most men are fair- 
minded in the abstract) of the parties leads them to 
use every endeavor to arrive at a conclusion between 
themselves, rather than to present the question to 
the court. Thus, the invocations of arbitration be- 
come fewer and fewer, while the application of the 
principles underlying it are more and more often 
made by the parties themselves. 

Hence, arbitration works only for good, and far 
beyond what, at first glance, would seem to be its 
power. This is because it is educational in character, 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 343 

and affords a feeling of security and peace obtainable 
by no other means yet devised. 

I did not expect to address this convention at all. 
You have heard more eloquent speakers than I, and 
they have covered the ground very fully. I think I 
have fulfilled my duty and function in presenting 
to you the thought of mutual government and pre- 
ventive arbitration as remedies for the troubles now 
existing in the industrial world. With this thought, 
and thanking you for your kind attention, I leave 
you. 

The Chairman: I will now call on Prof. J.W. Jenks, 
Professor of Political Economy at Cornell University. 

Professor Jenks: In the late coal strike — in 
nearly all of the great modern strikes and lockouts, 
we have had illegal attacks upon individuals. I have 
never yet heard any employer of labor or any of the 
great labor leaders who would openly say that such 
illegal acts were to be advocated or to be directly de- 
fended; nevertheless, it is not uncommon to have 
these attacks explained at times, even to have them 
excused on the ground that in time of "war" such 
things, however regrettable, were inevitable, were to 
be expected. In war, it is said, private property even 
of non-combatants, is sacrificed; treachery is not 
merely allowed; it is even praiseworthy. And so, it 
is said, inasmuch as a strike or a lockout is like war, 
these unfortunate occurrences are, at any rate, to be 
expected, and possibly to be excused. 

We know, also, that of late members of trades 
unions have been at times forbidden to join the militia, 



344 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

because they might be asked to fight against their 
brethren. They have sometimes, on the other hand, 
been urged to join the militia, in order that they might 
not fight against their brethren if called upon. 

We heard yesterday, we have heard this morning, 
contrariwise that the normal relations of capital and 
labor are those of peace; that the real interests of 
both are harmonious. 

We have then this analogy of the relations of capi- 
tal and labor to war and peace. It is, perhaps, worth 
while to analyze this curious but false analogy. How 
does it happen that on the one hand peace is said 
to be a normal condition, while on the other hand 
acts like those of war are justified? 

The relations between the capitalist and the laborer 
are two-fold. In production, their interests are 
in the same direction. Both parties wish to have 
the largest, the most valuable product possible, that 
there may be more to divide between them. It is for 
the interest of both to pull together. If one is un- 
willing to pull his full share the other naturally resents 
it ; and it might be that under these circumstances a 
larger share of a smaller total product would be better 
for the person injured. 

On the other hand, in the division of the product, 
capital and labor naturally pull in different ways. 
The more the employer has, the less is left for the 
laborer. There is where the conflict comes. Each 
party wants all that he can get without hindering 
progress too much. If the other is too grasping, it 
may be that it would be better to check production 
somewhat than to let him have all he asks for. But 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 



345 



there, in the division of the product, is where the con- 
flict comes. 

As I understand the matter, while trade unions 
have education and benefit features, they are or- 
ganized primarily for the purpose of strengthening 
the individual laborer in this natural normal contest 
with the employer for his share of the product. It is 
said that a workman standing alone has not an even 
chance. He must take what wages are offered him. 
Of course, if dissatisfied, he may quit work; but to 
quit work may mean to starve. He feels that, 
standing alone, he is a bondsman. United with his 
fellows, he is free. He is not willing to take an in- 
crease of wages from his employer as a gift. He 
wants to bargain. He says he is not a pauper to ask 
for gifts; he is a free man. He is right, in my judg- 
ment, in this feeling. He has the spirit of a free man, 
which all ought to have in this country. 

The laborer claims also that the union is the cham- 
pion of the cause of all laborers, non-unionists as well 
as unionists. Gains in wages, fewer hours of labor, 
protection of machinery, better sanitary conditions, 
are all largely the result of the union's efforts. In 
these benefits all, non-unionist and unionist, alike 
share. 

AVhen in the conflict for a larger share of the prod- 
uct, the strike, a workman turns and joins the em- 
ployer, he destroys the advantage of the laborer and 
turns against his class. His fellows naturally feel 
that he is disloyal, false to his trust. They call him 
from this false war analogy a traitor. Their class 
feeling does not distinguish between their class and 



346 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

society as a whole, their class and the State. The 
strikers feel that he is a traitor and that the punish- 
ment of a traitor would not be too severe. The 
feeling is natural enough; the conclusion is wrong, 
ruinously wrong, as all strong labor leaders know. 
A class, however important, is not a whole society or 
a State. It is only an important part, possibly the 
most important part of the State. Legally, the strike 
breaker is right; he may work for whom he pleases; 
morally, he may be wrong, he may be right. 

The question of right or wrong in his act depends 
upon his motive. He may be a conscientious, high- 
minded individualist who objects to the trammels of 
any organization, who does not wish to be hampered 
by the rules of any union, because he thinks it is 
better, not merely for himself, but for society, that 
each man stand as an individual. If he is that kind 
of a strike breaker he is morally right, however mis- 
taken his views may be. He is acting from a worthy 
motive and deserves only respect. If, on the other 
hand, as is, perhaps, usually the case, he is merely a 
selfish opportunist seizing every chance to profit for 
himself even at the expense of his fellows, taking the 
good they may bring him through their action and 
not being willing to sacrifice anything in return, he 
may be within his legal rights in acting as a strike 
breaker, but he is a selfish wretch, worthy of the con- 
tempt which he receives. 

If he sympathizes with his fellows, is not willing to 
take the lower wage, but shrinks from the suffering 
either for himself or family which the strike involves, 
it is probably right to call him a coward. He is un- 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 347 

willing to sacrifice for the good of his class, even when 
his class is right. Under those circumstances his fel- 
lows may drop him. They cannot punish him. 
Selfishness and cowardice are contemptible, but they 
are not crimes. We may despise the strike breaker 
who acts from either of these motives; not even the 
government, and certainly not we, have any legal 
right to punish him. 

Now a word or two regarding the difference between 
a strike and war. 

In war there is no arbiter of the conflict, there are 
no rules except those self-imposed under the public 
opinion of the world, and those, we know, are shifting 
and unreliable. Property may be destroyed, even 
that of non-combatants. The country may be laid 
waste; treachery is allowed. In a strike, on the 
other hand, there is an arbiter of the conflict, the 
government. The rules of battle are laid down in the 
laws. Both sides must and ought to abide by these 
rules, otherwise a greater wrong is done than any 
which can have brought on the conflict. In fact, 
in labor relations, both sides often break the rules. 
Employers combine, regardless of the law, neglect to 
protect machinery, neglect room regulations, willingly 
join the parents in hiring children under age. In 
times of strike their hired police forget that it is 
their duty to keep the peace, and at times incite to 
violence. 

The workers commit these acts and in time of 
strike often commit violence. In such violations of 
law the workers, as a rule, lose most. The upholding 
of government and order is a need especially of the 



348 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

weak. In the Middle Ages the feudal lord was above 
the law, was a law to himself; the weak had no 
rights. The establishment of stable government has 
been in the interest of the poor; the establishment of 
popular government means government for all by all. 
The progress of civilization has been marked by the 
abolition of the vendetta, private vengeance. Before 
the establishment of stable government the individual 
had to right his own wrongs ; now the State rights his 
wrongs. Doubtless there are abuses to-day; the 
State sometimes neglects its duty; the weak are 
wronged; so are the strong. The remedy is through 
peaceful agitation, by showing clearly that the wrong 
exists. When the issue is clear, the masses, our final 
law-makers, are always, in my judgment, on the side 
of right, on the side of order. Order under law is 
absolutely fundamental. In any civilization it is the 
first condition of a good status of the poor. No one, 
least of all the laborers, can afford to question that 
principle. Better lose a dozen strikes than to appear 
on the wrong side of that question. The police 
properly used are to keep order; they are not for 
either side in any social conflict. The militia is for 
order only, not for either side. The army is for 
order under law, at the command of the chosen gov- 
ernment. The one condition of social progress is 
law; the one method of change is by reason,, per- 
suasion. 

We have our arbiter for our social contests; we 
may properly fight, we must fight, for our rights in 
many cases, but we must fight under law, with the 
government as umpire. In war you may at times 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 349 

ignore the umpire, for the public opinion of the world 
is very indefinite and slow in action. Within the 
State, if you ignore the umpire, the government, you 
put yourself out of the game. 

I think it is worth while to ask the question 
whether it ever pays a labor union to commit deeds 
of violence in order to keep the strike breakers away 
and thus to win the strike? 

I ask the question because I have heard it asserted 
many times. I have heard it asserted in reference 
to the late coal strike that the one condition of suc- 
cess was that the union intimidate the non-unionists. 
In my judgment it is not true; but if it were true, 
even then, from the point of view of the union, the 
worst possible course of action that could be taken 
would be to violate the law, because, as I said before, 
the fundamental condition of all progress, especially 
for the weak, is the keeping of the law. When the 
law is wrong it should be changed. We have heard 
to-day how powerful the trades unions are in chang- 
ing the law. Any one who looks at the statute books 
knows very well that much of the progressive legis- 
lation of the last few years is due to the power of the 
trades unions. The unions might better lose a strike 
and wait a year or two or even more (as the employers 
might) to get proper, just legislation, than to violate 
the law. That act puts them out of court. 

Just one word more. Loyalty means devotion to 
the law. Loyalty to family, loyalty to class, is only 
figurative. The preservation of the family, the ad- 
vancement of class interest, whatever the class, can 
come only under stable government. The conse- 



35° 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 



quence is that the only true loyalty to either family 
or class is through, first, loyalty to the government. 
The man, the organization, rich or poor, labor union 
or corporation, that stands for law as it is and for 
its improvement only by legal means, wins in the 
long run, for whatever other conditions may be de- 
sirable (short of armed revolution, justifiable only in 
extremest need) the one indispensable condition of 
all progress, especially for the weak, is the supremacy 
of the government, order under law. 

A strike is not a war. It is a conflict under govern- 
ment. Any attack, direct or indirect, upon the gov- 
ernment, except to reform it, since order is essential 
to growth, is morally as well as legally wrong. In 
the past both sides, capital and labor, have sinned in 
this regard. Capital has probably sinned most be- 
fore the strike, labor most in time of strike. Both 
have committed crimes. Both they and the public 
should see to it that hereafter both keep the law. 
(Applause.) 

The Chairman: The next speaker will be Mr. John 
Graham Brooks, of Cambridge. 

Mr. John Graham Brooks: Mr. Chairman — 
During the last fifteen or sixteen years I have been 
keeping track of the so-called remedies for the dis- 
eases we are here discussing. The list has now 
reached eighty-seven. Each was confidently be- 
lieved by somebody to be a sovereign remedy for 
social ills. This gives us a good deal of incredulity 
about panaceas. I will, therefore, avoid the mistake 
of adding an eighty-eighth remedy to the above list, 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 



35i 



yet I am very confident that we have been discussing 
this afternoon a better remedy than any one of the 
eighty-seven. This is the joint agreement, in favor 
of which employer and employed alike have given the 
most convincing testimony. This trade agreement 
helps us at the present time precisely where our weak- 
ness is greatest. The trade union is as great a fact as 
the trust, and is now rightly struggling for every priv- 
ilege that goes with federated organization. In every 
industry where the joint agreement has been tried 
it strengthens the trade union at the same time that 
it disciplines it, and helps it to overcome its most 
serious weaknesses. I would have come to New York 
if for no other purpose than to hear one of these 
English delegates at the head of one of the most 
powerful trade unions say that the question of arbi- 
tration, the walking delegate, incorporation, have all 
been settled as the spinners have perfected their 
common organization with the employers. A power- 
ful union under a few years of the joint agreement will 
keep its contracts as faithfully as the employer. We 
do not any of us care for remedies further than their 
educational effect. Whatever educates most and 
best is best. 

Toward this the joint agreement will help. I do 
not make the absurd claim that this systematized 
understanding between the two parties is a panacea. 
Because the word panacea is rejected, it does not 
follow that the more modest proposal may not have 
what is relatively a very supreme importance. The 
evidence is overwhelming that this importance may 
be fairly attributed to the joint agreement if only 



352 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 



employers will bring to it something of their real 
strength and sympathy. It gives us arbitration in 
its very highest form; that is from within. It gives 
it in the one way to secure every enlightening edu- 
cational advantage. It is to the joint agreement 
that we must look for our best answer to all premature 
calls for trade union incorporation. At present, the 
unions are right in rejecting it. Multitudes of men, 
especially among the newer immigrants, would see in 
the power of the court a reason for not joining the 
unions. Until they have reached a greater strength 
and stability, incorporation would hamper them in the 
best work they are now doing. But the point I urge 
is, that the joint agreement does a far better educa- 
tional work. To keep agreements voluntarily is a 
much higher discipline than to do it under force. 
For many years unions have actually kept contracts 
when employers have genuinely and heartily co- 
operated with the joint agreement. 

There is no such convincing proof of this as the 
fifteen years' trial between masters and men in the 
Boston building trades. The agent of the employers, 
Mr. Say ward, who brought about this agreement, con- 
ducting it with growing success for eighteen years, 
allows me to say that under it scores of strikes have 
been prevented, millions of money saved, and the 
most delicate questions, like the limitation of output 
and apprentices, the use of the boycott, the conflicts 
between different unions and the sympathetic strike, 
are now so far understood, as a result of this education, 
that they are no longer feared. 

Speaking from the side of the employers, Mr. Say- 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 



353 



ward says: "My experience has convinced me that 
labor, thoroughly organized and honestly recognized, 
is even more important for the employer than for the 
workmen. It makes possible a working method be- 
tween the two parties which removes one by one the 
most dangerous elements of conflict and misunder- 
standing. 

It is from these building trade unions in cities like 
Chicago and New York that many of our worst 
abuses have come. It is here that the architect, as 
between the devil and the deep sea, has his most 
tormenting experience. It is here that the bribing and 
buying of walking delegates have done their per- 
nicious work. Mr. Say ward says: "Not one of these 
evils is necessary; they can be educated out of the 
way." Where the union has been openly recognized 
under this joint agreement, and the representatives 
of employer and employed have learned the habit of 
meeting difficulties as they arise, the terrors of the 
walking delegate and the "scab" begin to disappear. 
The name "walking delegate" is replaced by "busi- 
ness agent." Mr. Say ward says: "I no longer either 
fear or object to the walking delegate. I see that 
he is a necessity to the best work of the union." In 
an address before the National Association of Build- 
ers, Mr. Say ward criticises the employers for saying 
that they will not treat with the unions until they 
are improved. "This," he says, "is like asking the 
child to swim but not go near the water." The em- 
ployer must take part in this educational work as a 
very condition of its success. In closing this address, 
Mr. Say ward said "that either for the building trades 



354 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 



or other lines of work, these intricate and involved 
matters will not take care of themselves; they can- 
not safely be entrusted to one of the interested par- 
ties alone ; both parties must have equal concern, must 
act jointly, not only in their own interests, but, in 
effect, in the interests of the community." 

For that trouble-breeding portion of industry, here 
discussed, the joint agreement is all that any solution 
can be, namely, the next best practical step toward 
a rational industrial method. This agreement ap- 
plies at points where unionism is inevitable; where 
the wage system is under such strain as to require 
modification in the direction of a more democratized 
management. Every scheme that is not inherently 
educational is worthless, because the clash of the 
trust and the trade union is raising new issues for 
which an enlarged social morality is necessary. A 
wise use of the joint agreement, made elastic and 
practically adapted to varying conditions, is a long, 
sure step towards the common educated good will 
upon which industrial peace depends. 

Mr. G. N. Barnes: Mr. Chairman and Friends: — 
It had been my intention to avail myself of an oppor- 
unity Mr. Easley had promised me of offering a few 
observations on some points that have been covered 
to-day and yesterday. I shall not now avail myself 
of that opportunity further than to say a few words 
about one or two points in connection with which 
my own name, or the organization which I repre- 
sent, has been mentioned. I am sure you have not 
lost much, because anything I might have said 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 355 

would have been stale, flat and unprofitable as com- 
pared with that forceful, eloquent and, on the whole, 
persuasive speech of our friend Gompers this morning. 

First of all I want to avail myself of this oppor- 
tunity of expressing my sincere regret that my name 
has been associated in a most maladroit manner 
with the name of a particular firm that has been 
dragged into the discussion of these last two days. 
I have not assented to the name of that firm as 
being identical with that alluded to by me, nor do 
I assent now. I am very glad that the opportunity 
is afforded me of having that fact recorded upon the 
minutes of this meeting. 

Second, I have had brought to my notice some- 
thing that was said by a gentleman just before dinner , 
and I have been out and copied the remarks. I 
want to make some reference to it, because it 
refers to the men of the organization with which I 
am connected. 

The gentleman in question stated that he had 
been over to England; that he had been there while 
great strikes were in progress; that one of these 
strikes was in the engineering industry. It had 
relation to the manning of machines — that the 
union in question was trying to dominate the em- 
ployers in regard to the working of those machines — 
and, to use his own words, ''That as a consequence, 
the products produced from their labor could not 
be marketed in the markets of the world by England." 

I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that is not true. 
This is no time for circumlocution, nor is there any 
need for it. I simply say that that is not true. The 



356 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

strike in question was one, not about machines, but 
was one in regard to hours of labor in the London 
district, and was a demand for a limitation of the 
hours of labor which I think was absolutely justi- 
fied by all the facts of the situation. I believe with 
our friend Gompers that you are not going to get a 
universal eight-hour day or a nine-hour day — not 
all at once, at all events. You are going to have 
limitation of hours "by spots," as was said yester- 
day. Lord Shaftesbury and the others, sixty or 
eighty years ago, didn't wait until they could get an 
agreement with Germany or some other country 
before they reduced the hours in Lancashire. They 
saw the pressing evil right ahead of them and they 
went about and remedied it. Our London men were 
doing the same thing five years ago, and that pre- 
cipitated the strike to which allusion has been made. 
Then the gentleman says that our engineering prod- 
ucts, in consequence of union restrictions, have not 
sustained themselves in the markets of the world. 
What are the facts? Twenty-five years ago, before 
the strike to which allusion has been made, the 
engineering products that were sent annually abroad 
amounted to seven million pounds sterling, or $33,- 
000,000. Five years ago, the year prior to this 
great strike in question, the engineering products 
exported from Great Britain amounted to eighteen 
million pounds sterling, or $90,000,000. Now it 
seems to me that these facts do not fit in very well 
with the statements that have been made by our 
friend, and I am very glad to have had this oppor- 
tunity of putting our side before this meeting. 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 



357 



Third — this was in connection with the discus- 
sion yesterday, initiated, I think, by Mr. Halsey, 
but I won't be sure. At all events it covered two 
questions, piece-work and the premium bonus sys- 
tem. Some discussion took place yesterday upon 
those two systems, and I want to give you my view 
upon them, and I want to do that because Mr. 
Halsey especially mentioned my name in connection 
with the arrangement that had been made. 

Discussing the question of piece-work yesterday 
I think that the matter was dealt with from the 
wrong point of view. Piece-work produces more. 
The individual man produces more, but it does not 
necessarily follow, as was argued yesterday, that, 
therefore, it means a displacement of labor. I be- 
lieve that in proportion as labor is made more ef- 
ficient and productive, that the product will be 
cheapened, the demand will be increased. The 
probability is that the demand for labor will also be 
increased ; but that is only one phase of the question 
and not the most important phase to my mind. 
There is the way of looking at it from the point of 
view not as to how much wealth you are going to 
produce, but what sort of a man you are going to 
produce, and it is from that point of view that I am 
against unregulated piece-work all the time and 
overtime. 

You remember that glorious series of pictures 
drawn by Bunyan some one hundred years ago. 
One of them was the man with the muck rake, al- 
ways looking downwards. For him there was neither 
moon nor stars, no intellectual development, noth- 



358 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

ing of those finer attributes of consolation, but 
simply raking — raking his little heap of mud all 
the time. That man, under any system of unregu- 
lated piece-work, is the man we find in our workshops 
to-day. I was around another workshop the other 
day — and here it cannot be mistaken for the other 
one mentioned, as it was in Canada. It was at the 
meal hour and I saw a man at work. I inquired 
why that man was not off to dinner like the 
others. The answer was, "Oh, the molders are 
working piece-work. It is not unusual with these 
men working piece-work not only to come in here 
to the mill during the regular hours, but they often 
get to the shop at five o'clock or six o'clock in the 
morning, two or three hours before the regular time." 
That is piece-work. I am totally opposed to it, 
unless it is safeguarded in the proper manner. 

Now, it seems to me that Mr. Halsey's plan has 
to a certain extent this defect of piece-work or system 
of payments by results; but it does seem to me 
that it provides to some extent, at all events, the 
safeguards that I have in mind. With your per- 
mission I will just read to you the agreement to 
which Mr. Halsey referred, and which has been made 
quite recently between ourselves, the Amalgamated 
Society of Engineers, representing the engineering 
industry on the one side, and the Federated Em- 
ployers, representing the employers, on the other 
side. It runs as follows: 

In the first place, we agree to accept the premium 
plan of payment, subject to four conditions. 

In the first place the wages to be in all cases guar- 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 



359 



anteed to the man, not only for every week, but for 
every single job, so that in the event of a man having 
a job that lasts five hours, if he fails to make a bonus 
on that job and makes bonuses on other jobs during 
the same week, he is not deducted in respect to the 
bonus he has earned because of the bonus he has 
failed to make on these five hours. That is to say, 
every single job stands on its own basis. If he fails 
to make a bonus on any job he has at the same time 
a guarantee that his rate of wages for the day that 
he has been on that job will be paid. 

In the second place he is assured of extra pay- 
ment for overtime, or for Sunday work, which had 
been prevalent prior to the introduction of the pre- 
mium plan. 

In the third place it is agreed that there shall 
be no cutting of the time basis once fixed, unless 
there is an alteration in the machinery, or methods 
of production, and then only after full and free dis- 
cussion between the parties who are doing the work 
and those who are paying for it. 

In the fourth place it is agreed that the employer 
shall not introduce the premium bonus system unless 
he has the intention of adhering to it. That is to 
say, we make provision by that clause against mere 
experimentation with a view of not pitching up 
a man to his top pitch, and then resorting to ordi- 
nary day's wages when the man's capacity is gauged. 

I venture to say that the problem is not insoluble 
if this question of piece-work and payment by re- 
sults were approached in a proper spirit. That is 
to say, if both sides were anxiously looking for some 



3 6.0 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

way out of the difficulty or some means which would 
maintain that fellow feeling in the workshop which 
we as trades unionists must stand for. It is essential 
that we get some system which shall not break up 
that fellow feeling, as piece-work systems in the 
past have done, and at the same time succeed in 
getting the best amount of product in labor from 
the machine. I venture to say further, that this 
agreement recently made, a modification of Mr. 
Halsey's plan of some ten years ago, will contribute 
to the development of the engineering industry in the 
Old Country. 

But just let me say in conclusion that 
England is not so decadent as some would seem to 
imagine. There are some things you put up with 
here that we would not tolerate in England for a 
single day. I have heard from Mr. Gompers of 
the flood of handy men and specialists who invade 
all your occupations, and I have been surprised to 
learn here in this room the pleasant manner in which 
specialist labor is accepted as being inevitable. It 
seems to me that it is just the same with that as with 
mam' other things — the more you talk about them 
being inevitable, the more inevitable they will be. 
I believe that specialization in this country has got 
beyond the point of permanent well-being and ef- 
ficiency of your workmen, and if it were not for the 
fact that you are constantly drawing from our country, 
from Germany and the Scandinavian countries, 
if it were not for the constant influx here from these 
countries, you would have had to train a few more 
mechanics yourselves. 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 361 

Mr. 0. C. Barber: I am the man referred to by the 
last speaker as having made the remarks referring to 
the strikes in England. I heard the speaker's explana- 
tion and I am inclined to accept his apology. I was 
in England at the time of these strikes, for a duration 
of several months, and was reading of them daily — 
of the position that the proprietor took against the 
employees, and I stated at least what was common 
information over there, or misinformation, as the 
case may be. He says it was misinformation. The 
facts will bear me out, if the thing could be properly 
investigated, that I have stated the condition cor- 
rectly. I may have placed myself in a wrong posi- 
tion this morning, and I want to apologize. I am not 
against trade unions or labor organizations. I think 
it is the spirit of the times that people should organize 
in all the different branches of business, and that all 
laborers should organize. These unions may be prac- 
ticable for accomplishing specific purposes, or they 
may be educational only. I have no objection to the 
laborer getting the full amount and value of his hire, 
and I do not believe, as a rule, that you will find manu- 
facturers in the States opposed to giving labor its 
full value. Competitively, we have all got to go to the 
clearing house and find out the clearing house values 
of all our commodities. If the clearing house gets out 
of joint, or if we slip a cog, we are all thrown into 
disorder. 

My friend states that he is opposed to piece-work, 
yet he has just previously stated that the depression 
in the engineers' strike was not caused by the limiting 
of work of machines. This to me seems a dual posi- 



362 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

tion. I would like to ask him if it is not a fact, if 
piece-work was permitted to go on in the factory, 
that these machines might be made to do double the 
work, in competent hands? 

It seems to me the surer way to reduction of hours 
of labor is to increase to the maximum the amount 
of work that can be done within the hours that are 
labored. If these lines were followed by union labor, 
it would not be long before in eight hours as much 
could be accomplished as now in ten hours under 
union labor. 

You want your freedom — the laborers of this coun- 
try want their freedom from these unions. They may 
belong to them and yet should have their freedom 
from them so far as the amount of labor each may or 
can do. Let your motto be "The more work the 
more money," remembering that if they do less they 
should receive less. 

I know something of« the conditions of labor in 
England. We built a large factory there, and know- 
ing something of the conditions, we took our men 
from America. We took three or four brick men, 
carpenters and builders in each different line, and we 
made arrangements with the non-union people on the 
other side, giving them one shilling a day more than 
the regular price, for the privilege that we might hire 
and discharge our people at will. The principle 
worked very well. We did not put a half dozen 
people along the line of a brick building that we were 
constructing, proportioning the men along the line, 
to have every man wait for the slowest workman to 
put in his brick, the fast workmen lying idle, but we 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 363 

gauged them up to a reasonable fast workman, and 
discharged those who could not keep up their end. 
By working along these lines, and by giving them a 
shilling a day more than their regular wages, we were 
able to put the building up quicker than anything 
that had been done in that neighborhood for years. 

I believe in paying labor all that it is worth, and 
giving them their freedom to work as long as they 
have a mind to, making eight hours a day a govern- 
mental day, or six hours if you like, to make that the 
standard, it matters very little which. It finally re- 
solves itself down to so much an hour. I do not 
think the majority of manufacturers would, but they 
ought to be able to run their factories ten hours a 
day if they have the men who have the strength to 
work ten hours a day, but you should not try to make 
all men equal in the factory. The brighter in that 
way have no chance to rise. 

I think I have said quite enough to explain my po- 
sition. I believe in trade unions, where they are edu- 
cational, and where by their organization men can 
get fair and just wages, and where they are not op- 
posed to the proprietor, but work along in harmony 
together, but you cannot force matters. You will 
have to follow along the lines of least resistance, and 
you will get the same, if not better results in the 
great clearing house of events. 

Mr. Marcus A. Hanna: Gentlemen of the Commit- 
tee — To those who have favored us with their presence 
during this session, I want to return our thanks for 
your efforts and your attention. It would be a 



364 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

pleasure to me to review briefly some of the topics 
which have been under discussion, but time has saved 
you from that, and in closing our sessions I wish to 
bring up a summary from my standpoint of the good 
that has come and will come from this meeting. 
This free interchange of ideas and unlimited discus- 
sion will go before the public — the great audience of 
the American people — and the benefits derived there- 
from will be apparent in the near future in the criti- 
cism and opinions which may come personally and 
through the public press. 

For myself, I feel greatly encouraged by the re- 
newed interest in this great subject; by the close 
attention and attendance from those who are joining 
with us, encouraging us by their presence and by 
their efforts to continue along the lines which we 
have laid down. 

Summing up the good that may yet come, in my 
judgment we saved the best for the last, because the 
result, the last analysis of this great question, will 
be found in the industrial agreements. (Applause.) 
It will be intelligence, as it is understood from the 
standpoint of the merits of both sides. It will be 
effective in its results as it is best understood and 
appreciated. I for one do not expect that we will 
reach the best results in one year, or two or more 
years; but under the influences and inspiration and 
the encouragement we have had so far, I am sure 
that our committee will go forward along these lines ; 
will keep up the effort, inspired by the same desire 
to do good to all classes. We will expand our influ- 
ences; we will extend the scope and personnel of our 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 365 

committee ; we will keep abreast or a little in the lead 
of public opinion, and as we receive that support from 
the people we will go on to the fruition of our effort. 

I intended to have said a few words upon this 
agreement proposition. I have had experiences for 
many, many years in that sort of negotiation and 
settlement of labor troubles, but I will only cite one 
incident which is so fresh in the minds of everybody 

I agree with all the speakers upon the proposition 
of compulsory arbitration. I am opposed to it. The 
new question of compulsory investigation deserves con- 
sideration. I believe there is something in that, 
but I do believe that the power to settle all differences, 
outside of law making, outside of coercion, outside 
of undue influences, will result from the conference 
of the employer and the employee, with the one 
desire to do that which is best for both. (Applause.) 
I do not believe under the present condition of things 
in incorporation of trades unions. 

Referring to the coal strike for a few moments: 
In the discussion during that great strike many 
expressions were made as to a better way to settle 
those differences, and that was one of the suggestions 
— the incorporation of labor organizations — so that 
some authority might be given under the law, if 
law must be resorted to, to save the conditions 
which were precipitated by that strike, and in the 
interest of all the people. 

I heard the argument that it was an absolute 
necessity that such incorporation must be had, 
because a contract with workingmen was worthless. 
The test has come, for, when in their dire extremitv, 



366 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

the anthracite miners of Pennsylvania appealed 
to their fellows in the bituminous fields in the West 
to come out and strike in sympathy, in order that 
conditions might be forced upon this country which 
would enforce a settlement of the trouble, it is known 
to many others that the bituminous coal miners 
thus appealed to were under contract for a year, 
known as the Interstate Contract, between the pro- 
ducers and the operators of those sections of the 
country. Under the constitution of the United 
Mine Workers it became the duty of their president 
to call together a delegates' convention to act upon 
that question. Those of us who had followed this 
trouble from the beginning with interest and anxiety 
felt that it was an important moment in the history 
of the labor question as to how that would be 
settled. For my part I had confidence as to the 
outcome. The convention met at Indianapolis, 
represented by persons or proxies of 1,000 delegates, 
and the appeal was made coming from the striking 
miners of the anthracite region to their fellow work- 
men under most distressing circumstances and con- 
ditions, under influences which are so potent among 
that class — brotherhood sympathy. That con- 

vention appointed a committee of twenty-three 
to consider the application. They spent nearly a 
whole night considering it; they were confronted 
with the fact that they had made a contract with 
their employers, which for the fourth time had been 
made, to work for a scale agreed upon, to be in oper- 
ation for one year, upon which the sales of coal 
were made and contracts binding upon the operators 



INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 367 

were made. After full consideration, allowing sen- 
timent to play its part upon the minds and hearts 
of those men, with calm, cool judgment and loyalty 
to their agreement, that committee reported unan- 
imously against a sympathetic strike. (Applause.) 
That report was made to that convention the day 
following, and was adopted unanimously by 1,000 
votes. They agreed to stand by the word they had 
given in making that contract. 

Now, gentlemen, that case came up at a time 
when all the conditions surrounding it were as ag- 
gravating and forcible as could be brought into play. 
Therefore I say that the test has come and the 
men have won the confidence of the whole people 
of this country, and as far as I am concerned, sat- 
isfied me that we want no incorporation of labor 
organizations. (Applause.) 

But that is not all. If this good work is to go on 
and we are to succeed, those who control the labor 
organizations of this country and are putting the 
truth before the people of the advantages which 
may come from such organizations, must be just as 
careful that all things connected with unions which 
shall in any way detract from their usefulness, which 
shall in any way rob them of the support of the whole 
people, must be carefully eliminated. There are 
good trusts, they say, and bad ones. There are 
good labor organizations and bad ones. There 
have been means used in strikes which cannot be 
defended, and I was glad to hear Mr. Gompers say, 
what I have known always, that most labor organ- 
izations of to-day are opposed to any such measures, 



368 INDUSTRIAL CONFERENCE. 

and I know further, that those who are co-operating 
in this work are using all the means and influence in 
their power to eradicate such measures. I know 
that it is their intent, and I know that operators 
and employers are co-operating with them, in order 
to make organized labor attractive to all classes of 
labor; and to do that the individual rights and priv- 
ileges of American citizenship must be observed. 
There must be nothing that will come athwart men's 
consciences, even to lead them to hesitate, much less 
than to declare against organizations which are for 
the mutual benefit of all classes. 

I hope we may all be spared to come together a 
year from this time in this city to bear witness, to 
give evidence of the fruits that have come from 
these discussions; to testify that the industrial 
committee of the Civic Federation is doing good 
work, which should merit the support of all classes 
of people in our country, 

I am not afraid of criticism of our efforts along 
these lines; I do not shrink from any sort of dis- 
cussion as to the motives which prompt us. But 
year by year, if I am spared, I want to point to 
results in justification of the integrity of purpose 
and endeavor that this organization is striving for. 
I hope that when we meet again we will have to hire 
a larger hall — I am sure we will. 

As I said, I have been greatly encouraged by the at- 
tendance from day to day and the interest manifested 
in these discussions. While they have been without 
limit, at the same time I know they have been within 
the lines of proper spirit and consideration for others. 

Adjourned. 



INDEX. 



Adams, Charles Francis, In- 
vestigation and Publicity, 
58-78, 88-91, 263 

Amalgamated Society of En- 
gineers and Premium Sys- 
tem, 110 

American Methods of Pro- 
duction, 5, 6 

American Newspaper Pub- 
lishers' Association, 294- 
300 

American Pump Company 
and Premium System, 127- 
128 

Anthracite Coal Commission, 
327, 328; Strike, 365 

Apprentices, 95, 96, 144-149, 
158, 187-189, 280-283 

Arbitration, 243-245, 341- 
342 

Commission, 68-71 
Compulsory, 49, 63, 263 
In England, 24 
National Civic Federation, 

327 
Newspaper Publishers', 
296-298 

Baldwin Locomotive Works, 
Philadelphia, 133, 144, 
150, 151, 255, 278, 279, 
280, 282, 283 

Barber, O. C, President Dia- 
mond Match Companv, 
288-293, 361-363 

Barbour, George H,, Na- 



tional Association of Man- 
ufacturers, 231-243, 272, 
273. 

Barnes, G. N., Secretary 
Amalgamated Society of 
Engineers, Great Britain, 
84-92, 132, 133, 143, 263, 
264, 279, 354-360 

Boston & Maine Railroad 
Company, 61, 62 

Boycott, 16 

Brooks, John Graham, 350- 
354 

Carpenter, C. U., National 
Cash Register Companv. 
38-48, 137 

Chicago Street Railway Com- 
mission, 50-56, 262, 263 

Clark, Prof. J. B., quoted, 
199 

Commons, John R., 92-105, 
123, 138 

Compulsory Arbitration, 49, 
63, 263 

Contract Sharing, 144 

Driscoll, Frederick, Com- 
missioner American News- 
paper Publishers' Associ- 
ation, 293-300 

Easley, R. M., Secretary 
National Civic Federation, 
226, 243, 245-249, 300, 
354 



3^9 



37° 



INDEX. 



Eight Hour Day (see Hours 

of Labor) 
Employers, Organization of, 

39, 315-316, 336-338 

Factory System, 164-173 
Foremen, 40, 41, 44-46 
France, Ship Yards, 292 
Franchise Grants, Street Rail- 
ways, 50-52 

Garland, M. M., ex-President 
Amalgamated Association 
of Iron and Steel Workers, 
324-335 

Germany, Hours of Labor, 
14 

Gompers, Samuel, President 
American Federation of 
Labor, 120, 147-151, 184, 
188, 232, 255-275, 280- 
287, 292 

Great Britain, Arbitration 
and Conciliation, 22 
Conditions of Labor, 291, 

362 
Engineers' Strike, 355-356 
Premium Plan, 109-116 

Gunton, Prof. George, 163- 
187, 268 

Halsey, Frederick A., Asso- 
ciate Editor American 
Machinist, 105-123, 126, 
128, 134, 358, 360 

Hanna, Senator M. A., Chair- 
man Industrial Depart- 
ment National Civic Fed- 
eration, 1-2, 363-368 

Hours of Labor, 163-187, 
189-202, 203-206, 211- 
243, 246-249, 254, 268- 
273, 292-293, 331-334 

Investigation and Publicity, 

58-78, 88-91 
Ireland, Archbishop, 28-37, 

284-288 



Iron Molders' Union of North 

America, 317-319 
Iron and Steel Workers, 324- 

329 

Jenks, Prof. J. W., Cornell 

University, 343-350 
Justi, Herman, quoted, 39 

Keefe, Daniel, President 
International Longshore- 
men's Association, 303- 
312 

Labor Departments for Large 
Industrial Organizations, 
38-48 

Low, Mayor Seth, 2-4 

Machinery, 11-18. 88, 97, 
135-136, 151-162, 174, 214 

Marburg, Theodore, Vice- 
President American Eco- 
nomic Association, 21 1-231 

Marks, Marcus M., President 
National Clothiers' Asso- 
ciation, 249-255, 247, 248 

McCammon, Judge, quoted, 
246 

McMackin, John, State Labor 
Commissioner of New York, 
78-83 

Mather, Samuel, of Pickand- 
Mather Company, Cleve- 
land, Ohio, 300-303 

Minimum Wage, 98 

Mosely, Alfred, 4-25, 84-86, 
106-107, 122, 143, 149- 
151, 187-189, 210, 275-284 

National Cash Register, La- 
bor Department, 38-48 

National Civic Federation, 
2-3, 18, 22, 23, 26, 27, 28, 
30-31, 33-34, 57, 67, 79, 
83, 84, 141, 244, 245, 255- 
257, 307-312, 314, 324, 326- 
327, 363-368 



INDEX. 



37i 



National Founders' Associ- 
' ation, 312-324 

Newspaper Publishers' As- 
sociation, 293-300 

Nixon, Lewis, President 
United States Shipbuild- 
ing Company, 202-211. 

Non-Unionists, 259, 284-288, 
293 

O'Connell, James, President 
International Association 
of Machinists, 124-151, 
188-189 

Pensions, Old Age, 331 
Piece Work, 8-9, 86-87, 100- 

108, 120-140, 203, 209, 

357—359 
Premium Plan, 105-144, 358- 

359 
Publicity, 58-82, 88-91 

Rainsford, Rev. William S., 
Rector St. George's Church, 
New York City, 144-146 

Restriction of Output, 15, 16, 
92-105, 134-136, 156-157, 
252-254, 271 N 

Sikes, G. C, Secretary Chi- 
cago Street Railway Com- 
mission, 48-58 

Smith, A. Beverly, Secretary 
Lithographers' Association 



of the United States, 335- 
343 
Street Railways, 48-57, 262- 
263 

Towne, Frederick T., Presi- 
dent National Founders' 
Association, 312-322 

Trade Agreements, 293-343, 
351-354, 364-365 

Trade Schools, 149 

Trusts, 18,78 

Typographical Union, 295, 
296 

Underwood, 'Frederick A., 
President Erie Railroad 
Company, 243-245 

Valentine, James F., Vice- 
President International 
Molders' Union, 322-324 

Wage, Minimum, 98 

Walls, P. J., Secretary Blast 
Furnacemen's Association, 
England, 25-28 

Weber, A. F., Chief Statistic- 
ian, Department of Labor, 
New York, 189-202 

White, Henry, General Secre- 
tery United Garment 
Workers of America, 151- 
162 



c? 

^ 



^ ^ N 






if' ,s\ 



W 

^ 















^ < 






V 












, Si 



W 













^ 

^ 

- 






--■ 







: 



v .- 














* - <tp 








; .< 






LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



027 292 856 3 



